Misunderstanding Empiricism

quote:

---

Nator is trying to cite scientific studies for you, and you can still say this? If you want to have scientific discussions then ask some scientific questions instead of making accusations of bias and malfeasance.

---

Please don't confuse me with others. You and Nator seem to have difficulty separating my actual position (if even presented) and my presenting some of your opposition's issues.I feel that I tried to ask questions. Since I'm not a scientist by trade my attempts may have been clumsy.

quote:

---

PD writes:

​

Since I've worked in sales, public affairs, and recruiting; I know how to make a sows ear look like a silk purse.

And this skill is unique to mainstream medicine and is completely absent from naturopathy? Which isn't regulated by the FDA and doesn't have laws and regulations governing claims?

​

It is invalid to project bias and malfeasance only onto the side you disagree with. People are people everywhere. When you begin making the same demands of naturopathy that you do of mainstream medicine then your own rather extreme bias won't be so evident.

---

Sigh! Since I was addressing snake-oil salesmen, what part of that sentence dealt with bias or malfeasance?I feel the big problem is you're either confusing me with someone else or haven't really read or comprehended what I've written. If you can't remember what my personal position is when given and can't remember what I agree with; then there isn't much we can discuss.

Percy,I did respond to Nator's post.The castor oil pack thread has all the info I have access to. Message 86Please pay attention to what I've written and what I'm asking for. I'm trying to figure out how or if it's even possible to acceptably answer nator.If she only accepts information one way, then I may not be able to provide her with an acceptable answer.Good grief! I'm trying to learn and you're still wielding the 2x4.

Hi PD,I'm not confusing you with anyone else. I'm sorry you don't recognize what you say when reflected back to you, but I'm just responding to what I'm hearing. You can't say things like "I actually like science" and expect to be believed when you are pressing Nator for detailed support for mainstream medical positions while accepting with much less (if any) demand for support for the recommendations of naturopathy, the most recent example mentioned being castor oil packs.What we see you doing is being very sceptical of findings you disagree with, and being very accepting of findings you agree with. Picking and choosing on the basis of likes and dislikes is unscientific in the extreme. At the very least, consistency demands that you use the same criteria for all proposed medical treatments, whether from mainstream medicine or naturopathy, so clearly you're not being consistent. And being scientific demands that you use scientific criteria for all proposed medical treatments, so clearly you're not being scientific, either. Your snake-oil reference was three paragraphs prior, and the immediately previous paragraph was about the nature of the debate, a different subject, so there was no way to tell you were referring to snake-oil salesmen and not science.So if you really "know how to make a sows ear look like a silk purse," and therefore supposedly can recognize when this is being done, what's the deal with castor oil packs? And with the anti-vaccine attitude, for that matter? The evidence we have from these discussions says that you're unable to tell quality evidence from quackery, which is what I've said more than several times now. If you're a layperson without any particular aptitude for scientific thinking, and if you nonetheless insist on assessing the evidence yourself instead of heeding the advice of traditional medicine, then you'll find yourself continually victimized by quackery.This means you'll do foolish things like treat genuine medical problems with castor oil packs or homeopathic remedies, and not vaccinate your child so that she's only protected from disease as long as she doesn't stray from regions of the world that have broad participation in vaccination programs while also placing your own society at risk by reducing participation levels.In other words, I don't see a genuine desire to learn and understand the scientific approach to medicine. I see a determination to justify what you want to believe.--PercyEdited by Percy, : heading => heeding in 3rd to last paragraph.

Unhappily, I *was* paying attention. I know you responded to Nator's Message 35, but you didn't answer her question in your Message 38, so I responded to you in Message 40, but you didn't answer.So when you did the exact same thing again in Message 68 by being very demanding of scientific support for the claims of traditional medicine, in this case Midol, while being very accepting of the naturopathic claims about castor oil packs, I put Nator's question to you once again. I can't believe you're still doing this, especially after all that's been explained about how inconsistent not to mention wrong this is.--PercyEdited by Percy, : but => about in last para.

There was a scientist who turned into a philosopher. He was called Charles Sanders Pierce. He basically founded the philosophy of pragmatism, which includes fallibilism. Pragmatism was an offshoot of empiricism. This is as far back as I can go into the idea of the tentative nature of knowledge, but I thought you might be interested. I would agree with that. Science is a methodology that comes from various ideas about how to seek truth. Empiricism, rationalism, positivism, fallibilism, verificationism, falsifiabilism (Popperism?). Science brings together a wide range of ideas from various fronts and attempts to do something with them. If we develop a theory using scientific methodology we have to now how we should treat the theory - do we go with scientific realism or should we go with instrumentalism? Fascinating stuff if you really want to dig deep, but most people get by without worrying about it

You know, I'm going to stop jumping through hoops for you until you answer my question that Percy reminded me that I asked you in Message #35: Lemme ask you, PD. When your ND prescribed castor oil packs, did you similarly demand to see the studies showing that they worked for precisely the conditions you were going to use them for?Did it even occur to you to inquire about efficacy studies before you started undergoing the treatment?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

I think it's much simpler than we're making it. Science is tentative because it's based on inductive reasoning. I think it's as simple as that.

---

'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

People are fallible. What can I say? Even a genius like Newton was into woo-woo.

---

'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

Am I really saying anything controversial? I'm just saying that science is done by humans, not by saints. I'm not claiming that science is uniquely corrupt, just that it's like any other human institution.Company finances are as carefully regulated as scientific research, but people still manage to defraud the system. Why would you expect it to be any different in science? Of course, in the long-term the fraud and bamboozlement (a term I'm using to cover activity that doesn't quite break the rules, but isn't entirely honest either ) will hit the brick wall of reality, but in the meantime, there's still pain.

---

'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

PercyWhat exactly are your qualifications for evaluating medical research and giving people medical advice?If PD follows your advice and suffers a loss are you taking the responsibility?Are you licensed to practice medicine or give medical advice?Are you insured for loss resulting from your professional medical opinion?FYI:
quack
-noun 1. a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill.
2. a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan.

JavaMan,I would like to know why you included this statement in your OP since it appears to me to be unneeded.Your OP does not require a statement of your personal belief system so why did you feel the need to include it?It's not important to the subject of the OP.Or is it?

quote:

---

You know, I'm going to stop jumping through hoops...

---

As am I.You're creating a false position for me.

quote:

---

But PD, we already know that for various healthcare related things like your castor oil packs, you never required that studies showing their effectiveness for what you are using them for even existed.

---

False. You don't actually know what I did or didn't do.

quote:

---

Why do you need to see studies first hand for some things, yet simply take your Naturopath's word word for it concerning other things?

---

False. I never claimed a need to see studies first hand.

quote:

---

Lemme ask you, PD. When your ND prescribed castor oil packs, did you similarly demand to see the studies showing that they worked for precisely the conditions you were going to use them for?

---

False. Again, I never claimed a need to see studies first hand so nothing to be similar to.

quote:

---

Did it even occur to you to inquire about efficacy studies before you started undergoing the treatment?

---

Yes. As I said in Message 38: if you assume that I divulge every little detail of how I make my healthcare decisions or that I have to justify them to you or this forum, you are incorrect.Your question did not address the point of my statement in Message 24 and apparently any attempt to correct that is useless. Message 38From the Forum Guidelines page. I'm not sure why you and Percy persist in making this personal, but I'm not going to play that game.

This response includes your Message 79. I really thought your comprehension skills were better than this.What part of Message 50 did you not understand? The issue with Midol is for instructional purposes only. I figured it would be an easy one since it has been around for 90 years.When a child is repeatedly told they are doing something incorrectly, at some point they should be shown what is considered to be the correct method.You've created a fictional character out of miscomprehension and apparently correcting you is useless.I've been attempting to use your own criteria to support/investigate/research an opposing view. Unfortunately, when I try to understand what is expected, I meet with resistance.If you wish to continue viewing me as the fictional character you've created, I'll be disappointed. Needless to say I won't respond. I don't have to defend what you've created.Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

Why do you feel the need to question how I put my OP together? I didn't want to spend the first 100 posts defending things that I had no interest in defending. It was a way of focusing attention on the meat of the subject, so that people weren't distracted by incorrect assumptions about my position.Anyway, I think it's a courtesy to let people know what your own biases are before you start a debate.

---

'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

quote:

---

Am I really saying anything controversial? I'm just saying that science is done by humans, not by saints. I'm not claiming that science is uniquely corrupt, just that it's like any other human institution.

---

Accusing scientists of fraud, and other scientists of incompetency, is controversial.

quote:

---

Company finances are as carefully regulated as scientific research,

---

Hardly!That is such an obviously inaccurate statement as to be absurd.

quote:

---

but people still manage to defraud the system. Why would you expect it to be any different in science? Of course, in the long-term the fraud and bamboozlement (a term I'm using to cover activity that doesn't quite break the rules, but isn't entirely honest either ) will hit the brick wall of reality, but in the meantime, there's still pain.

---

No other profession punishes even mildly shady practices as harshly as science.That's why it is so rare.