"Science" of the Gaps

Ratings: 7.83/10 from 64 users.


"Science" of the Gaps

"Science" of the Gaps is made by the author of There Are No Gods (TheraminTrees) in which he speaks about the psychological manipulation behind the pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience is a system of belief and practice falsely presented as the fruit of the scientific method.

Religion and pseudoscience can drift into each other but generally speaking there is no requirement in pseudoscience to believe in any Gods, nonetheless the social and psychological parallels are remarkable.

Like religion pseudoscience offers the false promise of easy answers to complex questions through unsubstantiated claims of esoteric knowledge. Like religion its proponents deflect criticism with all the same fallacious defenses.

Pseudoscience often strikes educated, rational people as too nonsensical and preposterous to be dangerous... this is not a wise attitude.

More great documentaries

107 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Anon

    Video's like this will fly by a creationist head like it never existed

  2. Matt Kukowski

    I love the reference to his COUGH... think about when you are in a group of people, like in a movie threatre. When someone coughs, at least 4-5 people will cough soon later. As if the cough was a meaningful communication.

  3. kadmcf

    i got about half way threw this before turning it off NEVER to revisit it again. While every one is entitled to their own opinions the guy that made this is just as guilty of the things he is being portraying of others in this film.being condescending and dismissive of other peoples believes making a spectacle of himself by calling those beliefs "****"
    Your history and experiences is what makes us unique and forms our spiritual connection or lack there of. If god is your doorknob it is not for any one else to tell you different. Dismissing everything besides main stream religious beliefs and agnostics because you do not understand or except them is one sided and full of narrow minded thinking. Many of the other religious practices out their are based in beliefs older then Christianity. It doesn't make it s*it just a different way to think and see the world based on the life experiences and history.
    Even if the credentials this person gave on himself is true.... and nothing says they are...doesn't change anything and it doesn't make this anything but his own opinion.... This is a waist of time unless you just like to be led around by the nose by yet another form on a zealot

  4. pwndecaf

    This was linked to just the other day by Over the Edge, I think, and watched it then. It is very good, as are all the videos by Theramin Trees and his brother, Qualia Soup, I think I got that right.

    Yes, they are both well educated and disciplined thinkers, and there is no question about that.

  5. ~Oliver B Koslik Esq

    Once again I'm at a loss for words.

  6. Dean Edgington

    Another great vid from TheraminTrees, very illuminating.

  7. Dean Edgington

    it's too difficult for them to listen they are so invested in their dogma.

  8. sebastien972

    As pro-creationist videos will fly by our heads like they never existed either...

  9. Eric Tong

    Glad I'm an engineer and not these people who are trying to prove everything. Whatever works, works and if people can benefit from it then good job, if not too bad, but at the end of it all keep trying we'll all arrive at something.

  10. Benny Kleykens

    You haven't even watched the video, did ya....
    If you had you would have understood that 'it does not work'.

  11. IndustryOfBlame

    This guy isn't dismissing anyone's god, he's talking about the various practical implementations of pseudo-science and how it's affecting people's lives, including some gruesome examples from his own life.

    I think you're being the narrow-minded zealot here, because obviously you're taking great offence from something that isn't even aimed at you. TheraminTrees is one guy sharing his opinions, the fact that you see them as some kind of a threat to your world view seems hilarious to me.

  12. Andy Short

    This guy is extremely programmed by the main stream. He needs to expand out of his tiny box.

  13. Andy Short

    Actually the documentary is pretty embarrassing. He is far too emotional to be taken seriously. Somebody obviously really upset him. Some advise when making a documentary analyse both sides and dont go on a one sided emotional rant with nothing to back up your claims. Comments like "thats bull sh1t" are a bit subjective to say the least.

  14. robertallen1

    No, this guy is just fine, but you're not.

  15. robertallen1

    It makes it s*it if you have no good solid scientific proof for it, such as spiritual connection. And by the way, what is a waist of time?

  16. Paul Gloor

    It's important to keep your mind open... but not so open it falls out. I would say that skepticism helps us to sort out the chickens from the kiwis and then to sort the eggs they lay, good from bad.

  17. robertallen1

    Cynicism seems to set a higher standard.

  18. Mum paraszczuk

    Brilliant stuff. We need our primary schools to actively encourage critical thinking and reward independent thought from Year 1.

  19. Mum paraszczuk

    By turning it off and refusing to listen you kind of proved his point!

  20. robertallen1

    99% agreement. However, it must be kept in mind that a primary school student needs guidance through the rudimentary learning process. .

  21. Mum paraszczuk

    Absolutely. I think children should be supported to learn by making mistakes in a safe environment and to be encouraged to discuss what went wrong and explore how better to do things.....scientific method.

  22. robertallen1

    I can go for that. It's amazing how well the scientific method works even when applied outside science.

  23. Terry Beaton

    Perhaps the reason that he's upset is because he (feels) he's being aimed at. But then the word (feels) is not really a scientific term. Most people feel the need for 'meaning' in existence. Scientists are the happiest people I've met. Their need for meaning is very low. They're happy just to be curious. That doesn't work so well for depressives.

  24. asecondopinion

    Just for note, Jung's 'synchronicity' doesn't deny coincidence like the maker of the doc states. A synchronicity is simply a meaningful coincidence that appears acausal, in other words it specifically has no apparent causal connection. Thus the synchronicity/coincidence dichotomy is a false one.

    Secondly, in my opinion the short doc indeed dragged on (relatively) a bit during the portion where the creator was relaying his own experiences. Though the point was not lost on me, I feel like he could of spent much less time relaying or 'venting' to some degree and still got the important points in. It just seemed to take a little away from the overall presentation.

    Further, there is a fine line between cynicism and skepticism, merely adopting skepticism might not be enough to induce the 'thought gap'. Certain straight forward concentration practices more directly induce this desired response. Part of the issue is severing the link between automatically responding to (or co-emergently arising with) not merely sense input but also 'that-which-wispers-silent-thoughts-into-the-mind' or the 'silent-thinker'. Concentration practice can assist ceasing an automatic identification process with said silent thinker, allowing one to observe thoughts objectively without allowing that additional subjective layer, that identifying tendency associated with the feeling "I am", to get in the way with processing clear conclusions.
    Without said proper gap, there appears to be a greater risk for the unnecessary orders of cynicism to emerge.

    Considering science is knowingly based on an induction fallacy and knowingly implementing reification insofar as hypothetical models and establishing 'laws', it isn't shocking that those of lessor faculties or those lacking knowledge of the scientific method are taken advantage of or mislead. Further keep in mind that historically pseudo-scientific hunches and misnomers have lead to many actual scientific advances (though admittedly comprising the darker side of scientific history, often coupled with the unfair treatment of sentience, human & animal alike).

    Lastly, several of the issues presented in the video appear less to do with pseudoscience itself or associated specifics, but instead, rather vulnerable people being taken advantage of. -Often by others who are also particularly vulnerable to identity attachment and delusion.

  25. Vexst Junglist

    haha, ill try and remember that one for next time, sneezes are most definitely passed on though. i guess thats cus it feels so nice, we find some excuse to do it.

  26. asecondopinion

    Especially when there are physicists that assert sophisticated models that could be turned to instead (like arguments from digital physics): )youtube) watch?v=tfdMdbSnNSw

    Personally I feel this is the trick to actually getting more rigid creationists to learn science. As right now the common approach towards creationists furthers false us/them distinctions and religious/science dichotomies, which has caused creationist culture to slow their embrace of science or even reject science.

    Utilizing these sophisticated and scientifically literate models is a good thing, as it creates the conditions to merrily herd creationists to scientific literacy and scientific understanding (creationists will work to understand scientific reasoning when they are led to believe this is the hope for them to actually 'convert' the scientist; I personally think this subtle counterintelligence method is actually profound).

  27. wald0

    "Scientist" in general is a rather varied and large group to be generalizing this way, don't you think? I know scientists that suffer from depression, and some that are always happy, some that are religious, and atheists, and wild pierced up-tattooed freaks, and nerdy types with allergies year round and coke-bottle glasses, and family men, and out doors types, and x-game addrenaline addicts, and....., and....., and You get the point. By the way, I hold a degree in chemistry and though i am recently unemployed I like to think of myself as a "scientist". I also play music, write music, write poetry and prose, etc. Maybe not good poetry, prose, music- whatever- but I am all about "meaning". Scientist often consider and discuss the "meaning" of some discovery, we just recognize that its not our field and we shouldn't discuss it publicly or spend resources on it; that is for the philosophy department. No less valuable, just a different department.

  28. Imightberiding

    Nice. Thanks for this one TDF. A brief, refreshing & enjoyable few moments spent at my computer.

  29. Imightberiding

    Or it could be a simple case of one calling out this bull sh1t for what it is.

  30. Imightberiding

    You missed the point entirely. He stated that you did not nave to be religious to fall prey to all this bull sh1t. Yes, this may be the opinion of one man but I would hazard a guess that his opinions are based on solid research, experiences & a firm foundation of intelligence.

  31. robertallen1

    I would too. Have you seen any of his other video's?

  32. Eric Tong

    In my opinion, conventional medicine (not including physical treatments) is a refined version of alternative medicine. But through the refining process other beneficial features (of the alternative methods) could be filtered out.

    Pseudoscience helps to fill in those gaps and gives the user the sense that the treatment is complete and something should happen, and depending on their state of mind (and even will to live) they effect of the filling of those gaps can have an effect on the final result.

    Ever heard about the theory of diminishing returns (or something like that), where a conventional medicine or product was effective for the first few trials and falls off almost exponentially as more trials take place (with different people.)

    Another gap that a science has yet to fill, and because there nothing to fill it with and lo'n behold pseudoscience. Thus, you can't really dismiss the idea that pseudoscience work.

    A dimming fire will burn anything nearby to prolong its light.

    That being said, instead of conflicting and trying to disprove or prove that something works or not, just try it out, if works great; suggest it and let the medical community find out why instead of categorizing it under pseudoscience and never looking into it again (which I feel they have been doing for a while).

    I sort of feel like this is the mind frame of the current medical professionals: " I've worked on a cure for (medical illness here) for (number of years here) and some herbal remedy with (fancy name for a herbal combination) can cure it. No f***ing way. Its pseudoscience, no point looking into it because I'll get me kicked out of mainstream science and jeopardize my career. Lets keep going with what I've been doing before (even though it doesn't get me anywhere.)"

    Start filling those gaps people, or we will get anywhere.

  33. robertallen1

    Pseudoscience is called pseudoscience because it is just that. It doesn't do anything constructive (unless you consider delusion constructive) and standing up for it says as little for you as your boeotian claim that conventional medicine (not including physical treatments, whatever that means) is a refined version of alternative medicine and the theory of diminishing returns, if indeed it applies as you have stated it, is poor justification for what is known to be fraudulent. .

  34. Shawn MacKay

    The difference is pro-creationist videos are utter nonsense...

  35. juan

    Rationality is only an instrument of science, if you dont belie it, try to apply this concept in two states physical at the same time of the quantic physics of the curvature of the time-space in the relativistic physics....

    Scientfic knowledge is something that can be replicated under given specific conditions. Using rigorous scientific method psycology is not a science but a description;also some scientific nobel prices has been asigned to UNproved thing (lke strings theory) so.... what is the truth?
    In the othet hand some the pseudosciente have passed the test of double bind, ant in other casa no one want (sponsored?) these tests, why?

    The scntif use of talidomide had horrible consequences, now we have to wait consequences of other scientifc thing like OGM, electromagnetic waves and so on, who knos the true?

  36. equidae

    To stretch the chicken/flight analogy unto absurdity. If I breed a chicken that flies, have I become god?

  37. Robert159

    I'm courious what the thoughts are on on the Gerson therapy Cancer treatment ? Proven by doctors and case studies, ignored in hospitals

  38. Robert159

    And what about Cymatics?
    100 years ago science couldn't dream of what were doing today so what about 100 years from now? Science is a method by which knoweledge is discovered by doing the same experiment and being able to recreate that with the same effect. Until it is disproved.

  39. robertallen1

    From Wikipedia

    Gerson's therapy has not been independently tested or subjected to randomized controlled trials, and thus is illegal to market in the United States. The Gerson Institute promotes the therapy by citing patient testimonials and other anecdotal evidence. Gerson published a book discussing the alleged success of the therapy in 50 patients, but a review by the U.S. National Cancer Institute was unable to find any evidence that Gerson's claims were accurate. Similarly, several case series by Gerson Institute staff published in the alternative medical literature suffered from significant methodological flaws, and no independent entity has been able to reproduce the claims.

    Attempts to independently check the results of the therapy have been negative. A group of 13 patients sickened by elements of the Gerson Therapy were evaluated in hospitals in San Diego in the early 1980s; all 13 were found to still have active cancer. An investigation by Quackwatch found that the Institute's claims of cure were based not on actual documentation of survival, but on "a combination of the doctor's estimate that the departing patient has a 'reasonable chance of surviving', plus feelings that the Institute staff have about the status of people who call in." A 1994 article in the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine attempted to follow 39 Gerson patients in Tijuana. Patient interviews were used to confirm the existence and stage of cancer; most patients were unaware of the stage of their tumor and medical records were not available. Most patients were lost to follow-up; of the patients successfully followed, 10 died and 6 were alive at their last follow-up. Review of this study pointed out its "obvious flaws", including "the majority of patients lost to follow-up, lack of access to detailed medical records, and reliance upon patients for disease stage information"; the authors themselves regarded the results as unclear.

    The American Cancer Society reported that "[t]here is no reliable scientific evidence that Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer, and the principles behind it are not widely accepted by the medical community. It is not approved for use in the United States." In 1947, the National Cancer Institute reviewed 10 claimed cures submitted by Gerson; however, all of the patients were receiving standard anticancer treatment simultaneously, making it impossible to determine what effect, if any, was due to Gerson's therapy. A review of the Gerson Therapy by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center concluded: "If proponents of such therapies wish them to be evaluated scientifically and considered valid adjuvant treatments, they must provide extensive records (more than simple survival rates) and conduct controlled, prospective studies as evidence."[3] In 1959, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) again reviewed cases of patients treated by Dr. Gerson. The NCI found that the available information did not prove the regimen had benefit. Cancer Research UK states that "Available scientific evidence does not support any claims that Gerson therapy can treat cancer [...] Gerson therapy can be very harmful to your health.
    Do you want more? Promoting this quackery makes you despicable and dangerous.

  40. robertallen1

    You left out the main ingredient of science: naturalism. Why don't you find out what science is BEFORE keyboarding about it.

  41. Robert159

    that's what this video is about right there..

  42. Robert159

    It's food and the test were not even considered because it revolves around diet

  43. Robert159

    Explain Orgone to me as well,smart guy

  44. robertallen1


  45. Robert159

    since you know the inside has been proven to be empty space?
    Isn't it proven fact that sounds can be used to change geometrical patterns in water crystals?

  46. robertallen1

    No, it was more than that. Why don't you read about it BEFORE posting?

  47. Robert159

    i agree sounds more like a rant on a bad experience he had

  48. robertallen1

    Another form of "alternative medicine," which is to say another form of quackery.

  49. Robert159


  50. over the edge

    can you back this claim better than the first one? also if it is just food and diet please tell them they are drinking their coffee wrong

  51. Robert159

    discovered and shunned by scientific community, Burned all books and jail the scientist Wilhelm Reich

  52. Robert159

    thanks for the lesson , maybe you should read it too

  53. robertallen1

    The inside of what?

  54. robertallen1

    That weren't drinking coffee; they were using it as an enema resulting in rather pernicious effects.

  55. Robert159

    I did it and i beat cancer the doctor couldn't explain it. keep your journal. sell your fear to someone else

  56. Robert159


  57. robertallen1

    I have a long time ago and I've read even more about Gerson "treatment." There's a good reason it's illegal in the United States; it's ineffective and dangerous.

  58. robertallen1

    What is propaganda?

  59. Robert159

    compared to Chemotherapy it's harmless

  60. robertallen1

    So you're claiming that you were cured with Gerson "treatment?" How do you know this? Where is your hard evidence? Why should anyone believe you? In short, you don't know what you're talking about and you're dangerous.

  61. Robert159

    by the way what about GMO's ? you the engineered food giving everyone cancer? Now thats Good science.

  62. robertallen1

    Compared to chemotherapy, it's worthless.

  63. robertallen1

    Where is your evidence?

  64. over the edge

    please tell me if you are going to back up your claims. or am i wasting my time? no offense but personal testimonials made by an anonymous poster will never convince me.

  65. robertallen1

    You're the claimant; you have the burden of proof.

  66. Robert159

    only thing is i didn't post a bunch of wiki crap and tell everyone to read it

  67. Robert159

    would you like me to post some books and lectures about it?

  68. Guest

    The anger factor of the presenter in this video was the most evident theme. How helpful would it be to go to a therapist so clearly filled with so much anger? It would seem that a lot of assumptions were glued together and presented as fact. Some case studies were presented as clear factual evidence rather than as specific case studies. What is 'pseudo' about this assumed expression of science here is the assumed position that all of the disciplines mentioned have been studied and critically assessed. Clearly they were not. This is simply a case of projecting a subjective series of opinions and experiences as fact,yet disguised as pure objectivity.. How unscientific! Science is based on repeatable evidence regardless of all other factors. It is for this reason that even science has its limitations. Many scientists even classify psychology and all of its branches as unscientic and, in fact, as pseudoscience. It would seem that the presenter has made science his religion and he seems rather dogmatic about it.
    PS I noticed quite a few comments about creationists and it has taken on a life of its own, yet it was not mentioned in the video.

  69. robertallen1

    About what?

  70. WiseGapist

    It worries me that you are an engineer but still hold this absurd view about alternative medicine..
    What's the difference between 'trying something out' and 'trying to disprove or prove that something works'? - it's the same thing only one has an air of approaching the test in a scrutinizing scientific way, exactly what supporters of alternative medicine like to discourage.

    Your scenario describing the mindset of current medical professionals is ridiculous... If a medical professional was researching a cure for a given illness, and through TESTING found a herbal remedy worked, you think they would discard it? Ofc not, they would try to analyse the herb in more detail to find out what chemicals within it were active in curing the illness to refine it and TEST their refinements further... They would only be kicked out of mainstream science if they started to make untested claims about this herb's healing ability.

    Once an 'alternative medicine' has significant proven testing behind it, it ceases to be 'alternative'.

  71. WiseGapist

    Please do it xD

  72. Carl Hendershot

    Spot on... Its a shame and sad that this is true. The only thing I have a problem with is GOD proving false. Unlike other pseudosciences that clearly should be filtered for the obvious shown here. Religion is something else... Its best to start off with what came first? The chicken or the egg.. An arm an arm a leg a leg... Lets not forget that somehow evolution managed to create MAN and WOMAN.. When it really comes down to it Religion leaves us in the dark.. But hope somehow lifts of up out of that darkness... Scientology is not one that I am referring to lol. . The ending was a bit upsetting...

  73. robertallen1

    It's best to start off with realizing that the old riddle of chicken or egg reveals a complete ignorance of evolution.

  74. arya

    Alternative medicine works; It works because of placebo effects not because of the "alternative medicine"

  75. Winston Smith

    an interesting subject presented in an unwatchable (and monotone) format.

  76. Dwight Rossee

    Valid points by a somewhat traumatized presenter. My concern is always with the 'overprivilaged' status that science is awarded in present day society...modern mega-religious status from a few repeatable (peer reviewed) "results" leading to an often still further debatable hypothetical conclusion that sometimes yield what are regarded as positive results and other times yield out of control Mansanto/Fukushima monsters. This attitude that it is always "All Good" is quite harmful.

  77. robertallen1

    How about some specific examples?

  78. Milosc

    False dilemma. 'Argument from ignorance' is a religion of it's own

  79. robertallen1

    What are you talking about?

  80. fonbindelhofas

    great, thx alot!

    would be nice to see smfg about corporate “Science” 2;)

  81. Carl Hendershot

    Evolution has failed to evolve.

  82. robertallen1

    What are you talking about?

  83. Carl Hendershot

    See above...

  84. robertallen1

    Again, what are you talking about?

  85. Yellow Teapot.

    It seems all forms of religion non-scientific thinking must be banned.
    Scientists want to be the top dogs and naturally, everyone else must be subjective to the top dogs and their way of doing things.

  86. J -- L

    What a sweeping bulls(it generalization. Which "main stream" are you talking about? Exactly how do you feel he is programmed by it? How exactly is he narrow minded? Also, how is disbelief in religion is "main stream"? get an education

  87. Mack M.

    Very bad description, doesn't make me want to watch this one. I expect it to be an elitist straigth-out- of-high-school perception where todays science is narrowmindedly considered to be the only viable viewpoint, by an amateur who then feels the need to make a documentary bashing all other perceptions than his own current meta - YAWN!

    That's the kind of mentality that will stagnate evolution of a civilization.

  88. robertallen1

    And just what in the documentary was erroneous?

  89. royal

    I was impressed by your documentary and then I read the comments that people have made. The only contradicting thing I found was, why some like you would censor people's comments. Why would you do it if you are the person you are pretending to be..

  90. over the edge

    TheraminTrees has nothing to do with the comments posted here. i also have no idea if he even visits this site. as for censoring of comments please read the comment policy to understand why some have been deleted.

  91. Carl Hendershot

    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain s*upid.
    Give me a smart i*iot over a s*upid genius any day.

  92. disqus_g1Wmtf7alI

    Loved it. Was actually hoping to see a documentary on the gap in thoughts (being aware of being aware) but this was cool too. Peace.

  93. Bro

    His point was that he didn't watch it for fear that it is another video projecting science as a religion rather than a method of fact checking and proofs.

    Mack, this video talks about how people falsely project minor proofs into extravagant pseudoscientific theories.

  94. bro

    I agree that the presenter seems extremely frustrated with the current state of his profession. I think this also highlights that psychology is not as advanced as many people think it is.

    Science isn't a "privileged" state of mind or grouping of ideas. It's the presentation of proven and continually provable facts. If you chose to read a peer reviewed journal, you could copy their experiment and see what the results are for yourself. If the results were contradictory, then you may have proven the theory (theories aren't necessarily facts) wrong. Thus the scientific method is born.

    Monsanto may or may not be an evil company; however, they use science (knowledge of how genes work coupled with genetic splicing) to modify crops. Ethics isn't science, it's philosophy.

    Fukushima was a bit of a disaster, yes. That doesn't change the fact that nuclear reactors work.

    Science is not religion, it's an organized method of advancing fact based knowledge using proofs and experimentation.

  95. bro

    There is no evidence that GMO's give people cancer. There is evidence that GMO's have a hugely increased yield and that after years of testing are shown to cause no harmful side effects. If you look at the genes that are being spliced into GMO's; (For example tomato plants naturally emit pesticides that kill some bugs, this gene was spliced into potato plants to make it bug resistant as well. Should we stop eating tomato's because they have pesticides?) the question of how it could physically cause harmful effects becomes prominent to me.

  96. bro

    Crystals are an arrangement of atoms to form a structure eg: diamond is one arrangement of carbon atoms, graphite is another.

    The space within an atom isn't easily played with because of the strong and weak nuclear forces. I haven't looked it up but I'm comfortable saying that the kinetic energy of a sound wave is no where near strong enough to disrupt the much stronger strong nuclear force holding the atom with its electron cloud in whatever state it is in.

  97. bro

    American tort law puts the burden of proof on the defendant.. now that's injustice!

  98. Janeen Clark

    this is the best thing for a scientist to spend their time and energy on especially since millions are starving and dying over purchasing power please do not apply critical thinking to that if you are a scientist the number one threat to safety is pseudoscience. never question reward and punishment as a domination strategy to define authority please never examine how violence is built in to how we use language for that last 10k years. because pseudoscience is the best use of your time and effort your critically thinking now!

  99. Олег Мельничук

    it will help us distinquish who is who .i think we should learn how to control our appetite and aspiration but not always because it bore

  100. rngfarrell

    Sounds like you don't have an understanding of the scientific method. The aim of scientists is not to 'ban' all non-scientific thinking. Hopefully, through example, they can encourage proponents of other forms of thinking to subject their ideas to the same level of scrutiny that science does.
    The scientific method promotes objective, unbiased thinking and is self correcting. If that is not the best method we have to prevent erroneous theories and subjective ideas from polluting the sea of human knowledge then we must have been very lucky with regards to the progress science has made.

  101. Jo McKay

    Loved it, very well done. I could have watched hours more, but then I could not have 'shared' with others I know. I do not get this widespread 15 minute attention span out there. Anyway would love to see Science of the Gaps 2, and 3... I do think that much more curiosity needs to happen around the placebo effect. Like several doctors and a few medicine people I have worked with, I have great respect for some rituals & ceremonies that seem to trigger a strong placebo effect. However, I also think "do no harm" and honest disclosure are required - and if practitioners do not explain and disclose, then they should carry the full responsibility (& liability insurance) of the results. It seems sometimes that the crazier the ideas, the more $$ certain folks are willing to spend.

  102. 7th Sickdog

    The presentation is absolutely boring. Also the narrator sounds raged and looks like he has issues. My suggestion is to watch something else instead. And don't take serious the comments " you 've tottally missed the point". This only my personal suggestion, I am no authority but .. you had your warning after all.

  103. Drew Stevenson

    Entertainment this isn't. It is a brief but solid look at manipulation of self and others through Pseudo Science.
    Watch it again to find out that raged might be due to a medical condition and that a response like this is a poster child for rigorousness thought. But maybe you are an authority on boring, (not that you are boring but that you know entertainment). Instead use this as a 20 minute window into your beliefs around science, religion, easy answers and sloppy thinking.

  104. jillzzzz

    Absolutely beautiful proclamation of God's New Message to Humanity.
    Intellect must yield to Knowledge, which cannot be found in our books, our movies, our religions or universities. Humanity needs a new Revelation. Blessings to all who bare witness to human atrocities and take action.

  105. 7th Sickdog

    To make general assumptions based on specific personal experiences is also sloppy thinking, and he does it a lot. However I get your point and I used it like you suggested and it was far better. Stll not enough for me to suggest watching this though. But now that I think about it, what is 20 min from our time..What the h..

  106. Mose

    I agree 7th. The presentation seems to be more of an emotional outrage at a seminar the guy went to than a clear presentation of ideas. Although he does present some important points, much of it is shrouded in personal opinion and emotion.

  107. Nik Von

    Excellent. Very well said. Who is the Author?

Leave a comment / review: