Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misunderstanding Empiricism
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 181 of 185 (434852)
11-17-2007 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Buzsaw
11-17-2007 4:40 PM


Re: Summary
quote:
there is a whole lot more genuine science in it than in the conventional method and as well,
False. This has been demonstrated to you many times.
quote:
a whole lot more evidence that treating wholistically leaves the patient more healthy than treating via the conventional method.
You have never supported this claim with evidence.
You have had many opportunities to do so and never have.
quote:
Deborah Ray, Dr Whitaker and a number of others talk science daily relative to the products and practices which they advocate.
Both of these people advocate various forms of unscientific quackery.
This has been pointed out to you many times.
quote:
Dr Whitaker did not build the largest naturopath wellness facility in the US on quakery.
Sure he did. That he advocates non-scientific quack treatments oin his practice has been pointed out to you many times.
quote:
He being a former conventional MD integrates using mostly naturopath methodology and consistently saves basket cases which the conventionalists have left for hopeless or dead.
He lists several quack, unscientific treatments on his website.
This has been pointed out to you many times but you refuse to address it.
quote:
Saturating the body with products which are not natural to the body or fit for introduction into the diet is not good science.
You mean like ingesting non-nutritive toxic herbs that contain proven liver poison, like comfrey?
This has been pointed out to you many times but you have yet to address it.
quote:
The rapid advance of the science of naturopath is mushrooming and being used in Europe, Mexico and other nations where it is tolerated.
There is little to no scientific basis for much of Naturopathy, and its underlying philosophy is based in Spiritualism and New Age mumbo jumbo. The "Vital Force" and all that.
This has been demonstrated here many times.
quote:
Obviously you are not aware of the extent of the science in it all but we who are following and applying it daily are apprised on it.
I've asked you in the various past threads to provide the science, but of course you haven't.
All you ever do is make baseless proclomations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2007 4:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 11-17-2007 7:38 PM nator has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 182 of 185 (434856)
11-17-2007 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by nator
11-17-2007 7:30 PM


Re: Summary
I think Buz is drawing the thread off-topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by nator, posted 11-17-2007 7:30 PM nator has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 183 of 185 (434921)
11-18-2007 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Percy
11-16-2007 4:55 PM


Re: Summary
JavaMan writes:
Didn't I tell you early in the thread that you were mischaracterizing my views?
Percy writes:
Uh, no. We disagreed about whether tentativity had its origins in empiricism.
The mischaracterization I complained about was this one from earlier in the thread. (Note that I'm not repeating the complaint, just clarifying matters ).
The simple point is that there are certain questions that are appropriate for scientific investigation, and without doubt the relationship between vaccines and autism is one of them. There's no attempt to portray personal observation as worthless. The point is that if on the one hand you have a collection of personal observations, what we usually call anecdotes, and on the other you have scientific studies, then scientific studies win out because they are far more reliable, rigorous, precise, accurate, etc. The scientific method is the best way we have, by far, for giving ourselves confidence about what we know of the real world.
Why this point isn't clear to PD and LL and JM and NJ and others is beyond me, but the prevalence of people of such an inclination makes it clear why it is so difficult to convince anyone concerning issues like creation/evolution, 911 conspiracies, UFOs, ESP, faith healing and all the rest.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 11-16-2007 4:55 PM Percy has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 184 of 185 (434923)
11-18-2007 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Percy
11-17-2007 4:01 PM


Re: Summary
Your question is couched in somewhat absolute terms. How about if you instead asked if I might ever be skeptical of the scientific consensus. In that case the answer is yes, of course.
That sounds fair enough. I accept that my description of your position was a misrepresentation.
Oh dear, that means we don't have anything left to debate. I'll go and give my children their breakfast instead .

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 11-17-2007 4:01 PM Percy has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 185 of 185 (560376)
05-14-2010 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Percy
11-10-2007 9:15 AM


Re: Understanding Empiricism
Percy writes:
One of the characteristics of a pseudoscience is that it stays at the same state of progress for years and years, decades even. Here are some examples from science and pseudo-science:
Computers: Babbage's computing machine, WW-II computing machines, Eniac, IBM/360, Intel 8080, Pentium.
ESP: no progress
Astronomy: Galileo's telescope, Lick Observatory, Mount Palomar, Hubble.
UFOs: no progress
Space exploration: balloons, Sputnik, Telstar, Mercury missions, Apollo moon landing, space shuttle, space station.
Bigfoot: no progress
Medicine: early surgery, germ theory of disease, anesthesia, vaccines, antibiotics, modern surgery, joint replacements, organ transplants.
Faith healers: no progress
Straight chiropractic (subluxation theory): no progress
Because of the lack of progress in the pseudosciences, "research" from decades ago is as "relevant" today as it was then, and one of the common qualities observed from advocates of pseudoscience is citing very old "research".
This post was composed 3 years ago. I think it deserves honorable mention in light of the news of the discovery of Neanderthal genes in non-African populations that everyone has been talking about. If you don't know what I'm talking about, google is your friend.
One of the most visible tell tale signs (or is it tale tell?) of pseudoscience is of its complete lack of progress. On the one hand, research continues to make progress in the field of evolutionary genetics. Scientists, through collecting thousands of samples across wide ranges of gene pools over years, have found that homosapes and neanderthals did indeed interbreed. Non-Africans carry around 1-4% of neanderthal genes. And on the other hand, we have ID genetics researchers who have made absolutely no progress at all in the last 30 years. They have not published a single thing that's new.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Percy, posted 11-10-2007 9:15 AM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024