This goes back to the perfect world issue I alluded to earlier.
One side gets to declare bias and malfeasance (quacks) without proof of such, but when the opposition declares bias and malfeasance they just have a weak position and are grasping at straws. (Notice I wrote this generically.)
A quack is someone who pretends to have medical skills. Licensed medical doctors who choose to use natural approaches to healing along with traditional medicine are not quacks. IMO, the opposition would need to show that an MD is incompetent to bring doubt upon his practices.
I'll agree that Dr. McGarey's cases aren't as rigorous as the double blind, but that doesn't negate that the castor oil packs have been used by a medical doctor and the failures and successes are documented.
quote:
Getting the science right while alienating the potential convert doesn't seem like a winning approach, but on the other hand, I'm becoming convinced that despite all protestations to the contrary, examining the data isn't what PD is interested in or it would have happened long before now.
Hallelujah! Maybe you're finally seeing the light.
If you have children, you'll understand this.
A child continues to beg, plead, and bagger his mother for the candy bar on the counter. The Mother continues to say no and explains why to no avail. The child continues his tirade. Out of frustration the mother finally gives in and says angrily, "Fine, eat the candy bar." and throws it on the table by the child. The child seeing that his mother is angry with him, says unhappily, "No, I don't want it now." His prize wasn't as sweet since his mother was mad. He wanted happy compliance from his mother.
Attacking one's intelligence, integrity, and bullshit meter do not lead to happy compliance. Notice when I did give in you weren't happy about it because it obviously wasn't happy compliance. It was just an effort to get you off my case. Just like the example above.
In your own
Forum Guidelines you quoted:
Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.
In a debate, must one side concede defeat or do both sides present their arguments in the time allotted and the audience decides what they will?
What you may not realize is that in the course of searching for info to support one's side of the discussion, additional info may be found that will cause the person to rethink their personal position. That doesn't mean they have to stop presenting their original debate position.
As I've pointed out, even when I have conceded the oppositions point, I was still battered for the original position.
Realistically it takes time and maybe a little soul searching for people to change their point of view. Some do this quicker than others. To put it bluntly, we're unknown people on the internet.
I feel it is a mistake to make a goal of "converting" someone when you really don't know what their personal actions or positions are.
Your goal should be to provide the facts for your side of the discussion. As I've tried to point out concerning the castor oil discussion. I provided the available information concerning castor oil packs. That does not tell you what I personally do or don't do when I make health decisions.
My goal was not to convert but to provide the information for that side of the discussion.
If you want the opposition to see that someone is a quack or incompetent, then show more evidence than just guilt by association or attacking their bullshit meter. No dear, I'm not asking you to show me anything concerning castor oil packs. The thread is closed.
Going back to your response to Javaman in
Message 9, I agree with Javaman about what lurkers might conclude concerning the health issues. (notice the word might)
Your response to 2:
The actual claim wasn't that personal experience and anecdotal data are unempirical, but that they are far inferior to scientific investigation and analysis.
But personal experience should not be considered inferior. All the studies in the world won't make Midol work for me or Tylenol work for you. That is hard evidence for us alone, not anyone else. (No that doesn't mean I personally only require hard evidence to make decisions.) People routinely acquiesce to those with the skills and training. Doctors, Mechanics, Plumbers, etc. Over time we acquire experiences that influence how we respond to those with skills and training.
Personal experience is hard evidence. Everything else is
Soft Evidence. If a person has no hard evidence, then it is wise to go with the best soft evidence available.
Order of soft evidence value
1. Authoritative opinion. (But remember, even at the top of the soft-evidence scale, it’s still just soft evidence.)
2. Non-authoritative opinion.
3. Random guessing.
4. Seeing who argues the loudest and/or the longest. (This is worse than nothing, because it gives the biggest advantage to the biggest scoundrel, and just encourages bad behavior.)
If you truly want to get your opposition to think, don't belittle or negate their personal experiences. Work with it instead. (This is a universal "you".)
™ Version 4.2
