Charles has for years been sympathetic to all sorts of woo, such as "alternative" medicine; his book was met with broad criticism for its cherry-picking of scientific findings to support his environmental agenda but ignoring evidence against alt medicine, etc.
Calling things 'alternative' puts them on the same level, which they are not.
If they told me it would cure Alzheimer’s, I’d make a mental note to ignore their opinions in future.
“Alternative medicine” is so often snake oil, that anything calling itself that is something I hold in the same regard as Star Trek Voyager’s plot devices. Indeed, one such “alternative medicine” is what my mother used religiously to stave off old age memory problems — she got Alzheimer’s about 16 years younger than her mother, who didn’t use them.
Quick thinking has its place, but wouldn't you care why the person believes that? The anecdata about your family history isn't any more credible, if that's all we have to go by.
I think quick think should be addressed with slow think. By thinking speed I'm referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
In the absence of any surprising circumstances, no. I grew up with all the tropes — Catholicism, New Age takes on Wicca, Hinduism, anamism; homeopathy, Bach flower remedies, dowsing, runestones, horoscopes — so I’ve got decent reason to believe I already know why they might believe this hypothetical I’ve literally just made up.
― Tim Minchin
If those treatments have been studied in a scientific manner, then the reconciliation, so to speak, has already happened. But, how do we define the effectiveness of treatment? In some cases, using a placebo has shown some effect, but that's because the hypothesis about the effectiveness of a proposed treatment didn't pan out.
Something that 'helps' in a measurable way with no drawbacks is a useful tool to have. It does of course not mend broken bones or suture cuts in the skin.
I'm not saying that eating a plant is ineffective, but plants don't come with dosage information for the active ingredient printed on the stem, and knowing how much of the useful (and potentially deadly) substance you're ingesting is important. Vitally important, if you're taking something like digitalis, which comes from foxglove: Get a digitalis dosage far enough wrong and it kills you.
Keep in mind that there are traditional treatments that we haven't yet isolated the cause of action or the understand the pharmacology due to it being the interaction of different compounds.
I'm not supporting traditional or alternative medicine, but I also don't think that the issue is so black and white, and treating it as such turns people away from the subject entirely.
I don't think it has to be stigmatising, but I do think that calling things by their specific name helps with everyones mindset.
Some words like 'helpful' are fine, because it does wat it says it does. But calling disparate things by the same name leaves the door open for people to mentally align those things to 'be' the same thing, which they aren't. Distinction is important, even if the differentiation isn't black-and-white. Taking some aspirine vs. drinking a nice cup of green tea can both help with a slightly sore throat, but they are not the same thing. (at the same time, I'd argue that it's better to take that nice cup of tea, take a nap, eat healthy, get to bed on time etc instead of covering the symptom with aspirine)
Turning people away from a subject in itself isn't a bad thing; if someone is swayed that easily, they should probably not be entering a world of non-repeatable non-measurable non-transferable items and activities, especially if the people involved can't be held responsible for their actions. It also isn't a pharmacology thing on its own. While pharmaceuticals can help with certain issues, it's not the core of medicine and in certain cultures it's mostly just abused to cover up symptoms instead of used to mitigate or resolve root causes.
But it's a tricky comparison. In the end we're comparing something measurable with something based on feelings and traditions. Those are generally not that reconcilable.
Willow bark to aspirin is a great example of an extremely old “traditional” treatment becoming medicine. Same with quinine for malaria, etc. Tons of real medicines originated by isolating compounds found in nature, even if the final pill form you see is purified or even synthetic. Most people are unaware or just fine with this fact. Sure there are probably many natural treatments out there that are effective (and many that aren’t, or are downright dangerous). We should do the work needed to study them scientifically, and turn the good ones into medicine. Not just promote alternative treatments indiscriminately.
The pithy joke about it is this:
"What do you call alternative medicine that works?"
"Medicine."
Uhm, what?
He's not even the worst treated person in the British royal family, and Diana has been off of the television for decades
The Prince was largely irrelevant even on British television, let alone the rest of the world
If he was the worst treated person on TV, we'd have heard a whole lot more about his Epstein time
Unless your scope of attention is limited to the British Royal Family, I’m not sure how you come to approximately that conclusion. And even if it was, Prince Andrew easily beats him out.
And if we’re going by intensity of negative portrayal, and considering just the British media, the Duke and especially Duchess of Sussex is at least in close competition with him, too, and probabyl way ahead if we are just looking at current coverage.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=891qV-7Y42w
[2] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFoke4cads8VNAi1pbi7IkM7p...
Sacred Geometry is an ancient Greek concept that has nothing to do with Freemasons. Pythagoras was the most famous person to push it. It's that thing where they thought the world was made out of the Platonic solids, tried to explain the planetary orbits in terms of polygons, et cetera. It remained huge through Greece and Italy until the 1400s. The Leonardo piece "Vitruvian Man," where the guy has his arms at a couple of angles, and all the describing shapes behind him? That's Sacred Geometry. People used to think those shapes were evidence of design by God.
This was extremely common throughout Europe, especially in Christian churches and cathedrals (much like Islamic) until the late 1400s, when an Italian named Alberti wrote a book that basically pushed religious architecture forward 100 years in ability to make safe large buildings.
That book pushed for a return to circles and the cross, and most of Europe followed. However, that was also 60 years before the Anglican split, and about how long it took things to move from one end of a continent to another back then, so when it was getting to England, England decided to say that the rest of Europe was losing the beat, and stuck to the more complex Greek styled visuals
Most of Europe removed the Sacred Geometry, but England (and Italy) kept theirs. England in particular sees this as a tie to historic legitimacy; one of the things that makes Their Church Different And Better (tm). "We didn't forget the old ways" kind of thing.
Freemasonry? This isn't the Flintstones.
Anyplace to read up on it? Obviously their ceremonies are full of masonic and other esoteric pagan ritual. THey are a pagan Germanic-druid hybrid after-all.
Freemasonry isn't pagan in any major sense. It's pretty solidly Abrahamic, and parts of it are explicitly Christian. The closest you'll get to paganism is a continuation of themes and symbolism which are shared in common between ancient cultures.
https://www.ugle.org.uk/about-us/whos-who/12-governance/155-...
I can sit and name persons more negatively treated for hours and not run out of names.
EDIT: Why is my comment collapsed? Genuine question, don't know how this works.
The UK should quickly tweak their royal succession laws, and give the crown to Edward, or Anne, while the queen is still alive.
If Charles abdicates, the line of succession dispute would be rather funny under the current succession laws.
If they too decline, line goes to their children below the age of majority, and the icky question of regency appears.
The regency in question notionally gives quite a lot of power, as the crown itself. If regency goes to the executive branch, it will throw out the last check on the Downing st. for may many thing, including the use of UK's nuclear weapons.
The monarchists were out in force, and downvoted your comment. I've upvoted it, but otherwise there's not much to do -- I think a lot of people who don't care for the monarchy probably avoiding the discussion.
Bold statement.
Um, did you forget about his first wife?
They really do love making victims out of their predatory world leaders, don't they?
Trump fans do this too
https://www.amazon.com/Harmony-New-Way-Looking-World/dp/0061...
I found the book to be astonishingly good. It takes a design approach to Platonism and western esotericism. It goes deep into "sacred geometry" but steers clear of woo or religion. He adopts a Pythagorean perennialism and advocates for an ecological "spirituality" that is integrated with science. It contains examples from his own urban design projects. I was reeeeally surprised to find this kind of thinking coming from the Prince of Wales.