Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 2:52 PM
37 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,791 Year: 11,827/19,786 Month: 1,608/2,641 Week: 117/708 Day: 51/66 Hour: 5/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
Author Topic:   Raw Food Diet
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 91 of 93 (428964)
10-18-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by nator
10-18-2007 8:17 AM


Re: Response
Mainstream medicine sidelines journals like this one, and the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. I believe they are wrong to do so. We've had two whole threads now in which we discussed our respective views concerning alt med.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by nator, posted 10-18-2007 8:17 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by nator, posted 10-18-2007 11:41 AM Kitsune has not yet responded
 Message 93 by AdminPD, posted 10-18-2007 3:18 PM Kitsune has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 92 of 93 (429006)
10-18-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Kitsune
10-18-2007 9:39 AM


Re: Response
quote:
Mainstream medicine sidelines journals like this one, and the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. I believe they are wrong to do so.

We know you believe this.

And you are correct that those who let evidence, and only evidence, be their guide in trying to discover something about the natural world are biased against poor methodology and shoddy analysis.

Such substandard work leads to much error, LindaLou, of that we are certain. You are correct that scientific studies can be flawed and biased. We are telling you that many of the studies in the journals you cite are flawed and biased. What you are essentially saying is that since any study can be biased and flawed, we might as well just pick the ones that have the results we like the best. The thing is, just because you aren't willing or able to be identify bias and flaws in studies doesn't mean nobody else isn't. We have explained in detail exactly how they are flawed and biased. It is your choice, of course, to remain closed to the possibility that the scientists here actually know what they are talking about, and also closed to the possibility that you could be wrongheaded in your approach to evidence.

I also note that you haven't demonstrated that your belief that mainstream medicine is wrong to marginalize such journals is based in anything other than your preference to believe whatever study, report, or anecdote you wish regardless of the quality of the evidence or reporting.

This means that you don't care about being correct if it means having to challenge what you prefer to believe.

Tell me, do you think that such an attitude is biased in such a way to lead to less error, or more?

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Kitsune, posted 10-18-2007 9:39 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

    
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 93 of 93 (429092)
10-18-2007 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Kitsune
10-18-2007 9:39 AM


Topic
LindaLou and Nator

Please keep to the discussion of diet.

Please do not venture into medicine or journal bias.

Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.

Thank you Purple

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Kitsune, posted 10-18-2007 9:39 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

  
Prev123456
7
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019