Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 136 of 185 (432501)
11-06-2007 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by purpledawn
11-06-2007 9:37 AM


Re: Bias and Malfeasance
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.
That's your standard?
An MD used it. An MD wrote it down. Therefore, it is evidence?
PD, that's an argument from authority.
Not to mention unbelievably gullible.
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.
By your reasoning, any personal experience trumps scientific investigation?
Ghosts, Bigfoot and UFOs must exist then. After all, people have seen them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by purpledawn, posted 11-06-2007 9:37 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by purpledawn, posted 11-06-2007 1:58 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 137 of 185 (432523)
11-06-2007 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by nator
11-06-2007 10:14 AM


Re: Bias and Malfeasance
quote:
They are if those "natural methods" have not been demonstrated to work in rigorous double-blind controlled studies.
That's your opinion, not fact. A quack is one who pretends to have medical skills. A licensed MD has medical skills. So you would need to show incompetence or malpractice. Quack doesn't fit. If they've had experience with their own MD suggesting holistic treatments, then you aren't going to make an impression on them. Like I said once before, trying to sell the idea that an MD from Harvard Medical School went stupid doesn't compute.
quote:
Personal experience is inferior when making broad claims because personal experience isn't tested against placebo. Personal experience when used to extrapolate to groups isn't tested at all, and can't help but be riddled with bias and error.
Exactly, but if one is trying to convince an individual, then the personal experiences shared need to be respected when making an argument. Make sure the separation is made between personal choices and national choices. Like I've said before, I can understand why national choices are what they are, but my personal choice may not agree.
Yes the burden is on the heretic, but look at it realistically.
This is a discussion board on the internet. No one is going to run out and do a study to prove their point. There is limited access to first hand information for some. There is no trophy or prize money for winning.
When you come through like a bulldozer, all they have to do is shut you off and leave. If they leave, they don't see your message. If you want someone to listen, you have to keep their attention. Preferably without stress. (Universal "you".)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by nator, posted 11-06-2007 10:14 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by molbiogirl, posted 11-06-2007 2:08 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 11-06-2007 3:34 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 144 by nator, posted 11-06-2007 8:41 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 138 of 185 (432527)
11-06-2007 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by molbiogirl
11-06-2007 11:58 AM


Re: Bias and Malfeasance
quote:
PD, that's an argument from authority.
Not as I understand that argument. I'm not saying that McGarey is infallible because he's a doctor or that you have to believe his results because he's a doctor, but it was made clear that anecdotal evidence and personal evidence were unacceptable. This has nothing to do with my personal standards.
The studies that were provided from the opposition were by scientists or medical doctors. So I provided information from a medical doctor who used castor oil packs. Since there really aren't any other studies done on castor oil packs that I can find, that's the closest to meet the standards requested for the purpose of discussion.
quote:
Not to mention unbelievably gullible.
There's another one of those 2x4s.
"Don't believe him just because he's an MD." WHAP!
"Listen to your MD, not an ND." WHAP!
Either people should generally trust those trained in traditional medicine or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by molbiogirl, posted 11-06-2007 11:58 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 139 of 185 (432529)
11-06-2007 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by purpledawn
11-06-2007 1:32 PM


Re: Bias and Malfeasance
That's your opinion, not fact. A quack is one who pretends to have medical skills.
No. According to http://www.medicinenet.com:
Quack:
1) A practitioner who suggests the use of substances or devices for the prevention or treatment of disease that are known to be ineffective.
2) A person who pretends to be able to diagnose or heal people, but is unqualified and incompetent.
Like I said once before, trying to sell the idea that an MD from Harvard Medical School went stupid doesn't compute.
Again. Your gullibility is astounding.
How is an advanced degree from a prestigous institution a guarantee that an MD hasn't "gone stupid"?
Hell. Even a Nobel prize isn't a guarantee. Dr. Watson thinks black folks are genetically lazy and stupid.
Here's an example:
AQA's president and cofounder was Jonathan V. Wright, M.D., a Harvard graduate who obtained his medical degree at the University of Michigan and began practicing "nutritional medicine" in 1973 at his Tahoma Clinic in Kent, Washington, a few miles southeast of Seattle. He and Alan Gaby, M.D., of Baltimore, give seminars for health professionals on "Nutrition as Therapy," which present their theories in detail. (AQA's first 16 members were recruited at the May 1985 seminar.) Wright also operates the Meridian Valley Laboratory, a facility that does many nonstandard tests. From 1993 through 1998, Wright helped lead the National Health Federation, a group whose primary goal is to abolish government regulation of health-care activities.
In December 1991, an FDA inspector posed as a patient and was diagnosed with an Interro device, a computerized galvanometer that measures changes in the skin's electrical resistance and depicts them on the screen of a monitor. (The reading on the screen is determined by how hard the probe is pressed against the patient's finger; the harder the pressure, the less skin resistance and the higher the reading. The FDA Center for Devices and Radiologic Health has said that such devices are "adulterated and misbranded" and can have no legal medical use [5].) The inspector reported that the woman who operated the device probed points on one of his fingers while selecting items on the screen that were said to represent substances to which he might be allergic. The woman explained that the height of a vertical bar that appeared when she probed his finger would indicate whether or not he was sensitive to the item being tested. After the test was completed, a printer next to the monitor printed a list of foods, chemicals, and other substances, with numerical values corresponding to readings on the Interro screen. Then he was given several homeopathic medicines, instructions for using them, and an article saying that they would result in dramatic relief of his allergic symptoms [6].
In February 1992, Wright's clinic posted a notice claiming that state-licensed physicians are "exempt from the restrictions and regulations of the federal Food and Drug Administration as a matter of federal law." The notice also stated that "no employee, agent or inspector of the FDA shall be permitted on these premises."
http://www.quackwatch.org/...merEducation/Nonrecorg/aqa.html
A Harvard graduate uses galvanic skin response to determine allergies.
A Harvard graduate claims he is exempt from FDA regulations.
Here's another example:
Harvard psychiatrist John Mack, MD, established the Scientific Advisory Board of the Program for Extraordinary Experience Research (PEER) to research alien abductions. Dr. Mack believes that hundreds of thousands of Americans have been abducted by aliens and uses "alien-abduction therapy".
Passport to the Cosmos: An Interview with John Mack, M.D. - John E. Mack Institute
Here's another example:
James S. Gordon, MD, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Medical School (1967).
Dr. Gordon sits on the Scientific Advisory Board of PEER.
Dr. Gordon was a speaker at a 1997 conference of followers of "orgone energy" theorist Wilhelm Reich. Gordon challenged the participants to undertake clinical trials of Reich's "orgone accumulator." Speakers at this conference also led discussions of UFOs. Dr. Gordon also has a special interest in UFOs, having written a 1991 article on "The UFO Experience' for the Atlantic Monthly.
Seriously, PD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by purpledawn, posted 11-06-2007 1:32 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by purpledawn, posted 11-06-2007 6:45 PM molbiogirl has not replied

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


Message 140 of 185 (432543)
11-06-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by purpledawn
11-06-2007 9:37 AM


Re: Bias and Malfeasance
purpledawn writes:
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.)
I think you're confusing two different arguments here.
When you raise questions of bias and malfeasance among scientists, which you've done a number of times now, the answer has always been that these are qualities of people everywhere, and that they are much easier to get away with outside science because science is tied to the real world and requires replication. So the bias/malfeasance issue is one argument, and it's been addressed.
But the argument against quacks isn't that they're biased and given to dishonest behavior. The "bias and malfeasance" charge is yours against science, not ours against quacks. We haven't been using it except when you yourself raise it about science. The charge against quacks is that they're not doing science.
You keep introducing the "bias and malfeasance" charge as if it were new, and you were moving toward introducing it again recently when you started inquiring about the source of financing for medical research. The next time you raise this issue you shouldn't raise it as if it were for the first time. You should instead address, finally, the rebuttal, namely that quacks are far more susceptible to this problem than scientists.
Hallelujah! Maybe you're finally seeing the light.
If you have children, you'll understand this.
But you're not a child. You're leaving unaddressed most of the rebuttals, you're failing to move forward with examination of any study or even to provide the appendix of information for the McGarey cases, then when pressed on these points you lash out.
Attacking one's intelligence, integrity, and bullshit meter do not lead to happy compliance.
Then stop citing psychic websites and start engaging the discussion.
As I've pointed out, even when I have conceded the oppositions point, I was still battered for the original position.
Your original position, that anecdotal data is equal to scientific data, is bogus. This has been pointed out many times, but you have yet to take up discussion of it. You just wait a few posts, then you reintroduce your argument from scratch again as if it had never come up before.
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.
No one has unrealistic expectations about anyone changing their position. I've called this an unrealistic expectation here many times. But it is not unrealistic to expect someone to engage the discussion if they're going to continue posting. You are, as I said before, like Faith in that the more one attempts to focus attention on the core issues, the more likely you are to blow up.
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.
You are again introducing an argument from scratch as if it had never been rebutted. Please address the rebuttal and help move the discussion forward. For example, I already said in Message 131 that you can't generalize from personal experience, because there are no controls and the sample size is too tiny. Sure, it makes absolute sense to decide for yourself whether Midol works for you. But conversely, it makes absolutely no sense to conclude from your own personal experience that Midol doesn't work for anyone.
Other messages prior to this have made the same point, and Nator repeats the point yet again in her reply. It is time for you to stop saying this, the things like "Personal experience is not inferior to science," as if this had not already been rebutted many times. Maybe we're wrong, but the way to show we're wrong is to address the rebuttals, not to keep repeating yourself.
You could even create a website called MidolDoesNotWork.com and attract large numbers of webizens all posting to your bulletin board sharing their own personal experiences with Midol and how it didn't work for them. What would that prove?
The answer is, "Absolutely nothing!" And someone else could create a website called MidolIsWonderful.com where people post their positive experiences with Midol, and that would also prove absolutely nothing.
To have confidence in your findings you need a scientific approach in order to weed out self-selection problems (a biggie) and subjective assessments and biases.
Now I know you understand that Midol works for some people and not for others, so let's instead focus on castor oil packs. Castor oil packs do not have scientific studies that demonstrate effectiveness. So if you put together a website called CastorOilPacksWork.com and attracted a large following, what would that prove? The answer once again is absolutely nothing. A successful website called CastorOilPacksDoNotWork.com would also prove nothing. To demonstrate effectiveness you need scientific studies.
So this brings us to McGarey's cases. If you can produce the information from the appendix to McGarey's book then we can examine them and see if our suspicions are correct. If you don't want to produce this information, then pick a technical paper that's been cited in this thread and we'll go through it with you and identify the qualities that make it good or bad science and why.
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.
No, personal experience is not hard evidence. It is subjective empirical evidence. It is the methods of science as a collective enterprise that turn the personal experience of many scientists performing experiments, studies and observations into the more objective form of evidence that we might call hard evidence.
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".)
If you truly want to discuss something, then stop berating and frustrating everyone and instead actually discuss it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by purpledawn, posted 11-06-2007 9:37 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by purpledawn, posted 11-06-2007 6:53 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 141 of 185 (432545)
11-06-2007 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by purpledawn
11-06-2007 1:32 PM


Re: Bias and Malfeasance
purpledawn writes:
That's your opinion, not fact. A quack is one who pretends to have medical skills. A licensed MD has medical skills. So you would need to show incompetence or malpractice. Quack doesn't fit. If they've had experience with their own MD suggesting holistic treatments, then you aren't going to make an impression on them. Like I said once before, trying to sell the idea that an MD from Harvard Medical School went stupid doesn't compute.
As MBG quite clearly showed, a degree from Harvard Medical School does not come with a 50 year warranty against turning into a quack. A degree from a prestigious school is not a guarantee that someone isn't a quack. What makes someone a quack is the treatments and remedies he recommends, not his degree. Around 24,000 people graduate with medical degrees every year, and if only 1% become quacks, that's still 240/year, plenty to go around.
Yes the burden is on the heretic, but look at it realistically.
This is a discussion board on the internet. No one is going to run out and do a study to prove their point.
But there are a huge number of completed studies that can be examined, if someone actually was willing to do so.
When you come through like a bulldozer, all they have to do is shut you off and leave. If they leave, they don't see your message. If you want someone to listen, you have to keep their attention. Preferably without stress. (Universal "you".)
If they're not going to discuss the topic anyway, who cares. Good riddance!
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Removed a full paragraph, I had misread what PD said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by purpledawn, posted 11-06-2007 1:32 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 142 of 185 (432559)
11-06-2007 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by molbiogirl
11-06-2007 2:08 PM


Re: Bias and Malfeasance
quote:
Again. Your gullibility is astounding.
You keep making it about me and I won't respond anymore.
The point is show that the MD is wrong about the medical issues, not just wrong because of other beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by molbiogirl, posted 11-06-2007 2:08 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 11-06-2007 9:22 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 143 of 185 (432561)
11-06-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Percy
11-06-2007 3:16 PM


Light Went Out
My bad, you didn't see the light.
I'm out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 11-06-2007 3:16 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by nator, posted 11-06-2007 8:55 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 11-06-2007 9:01 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 144 of 185 (432572)
11-06-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by purpledawn
11-06-2007 1:32 PM


Re: Bias and Malfeasance
quote:
That's your opinion, not fact. A quack is one who pretends to have medical skills. A licensed MD has medical skills. So you would need to show incompetence or malpractice. Quack doesn't fit.
Sure it does.
Let me give you another example to illustrate my point.
There are people with legitimate advanced scientific degrees in relevant fields who reject Evolution, either in full or in part. Not many, but a few. Their reasons for doing so are not scientific, yet they use their credentials as scientists to give weight to their unscientific views. Many of this group of scientists have published legitimate(non-creationist/ID) work in journals and some remain active in their fields.
By your rationale, we shouldn't reject those scientists' error-filled and unscientific views of Evolution simply because they have a PhD and have or are doing good-quality work otherwise.
quote:
Exactly, but if one is trying to convince an individual, then the personal experiences shared need to be respected when making an argument.
No, they really don't, PD. Not when making scientific claims. That's kinda the whole reason I wrote what you were responding to:
Personal experience is inferior when making broad claims because personal experience isn't tested against placebo. Personal experience when used to extrapolate to groups isn't tested at all, and can't help but be riddled with bias and error.
Unless you are trying to claim that castor oil packs work just for you or something...
quote:
When you come through like a bulldozer, all they have to do is shut you off and leave. If they leave, they don't see your message. If you want someone to listen, you have to keep their attention. Preferably without stress. (Universal "you".)
By the same token, if you want to avoid being steamrollered by frustrated people, then I suggest that you start actually responding to what people write and debating a bit more forthrightly. In other words, stop avoiding direct questions, feigning dumbness, and stonewalling. (Universal "you")

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by purpledawn, posted 11-06-2007 1:32 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 145 of 185 (432575)
11-06-2007 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by purpledawn
11-06-2007 6:53 PM


Re: Light Went Out
quote:
My bad, you didn't see the light.
I'm out.
Translation:
I don't like it that nobody in this thread will let me simply repeat myself over and over and that everybody in this thread keeps pressing me to actually respond to rebuttals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by purpledawn, posted 11-06-2007 6:53 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by purpledawn, posted 11-07-2007 7:12 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 146 of 185 (432578)
11-06-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by purpledawn
11-06-2007 6:53 PM


Re: Light Went Out
purpledawn writes:
My bad, you didn't see the light.
PD, this is the third time you've done this, in just this thread alone. There was no light to see, because you never engaged the discussion. We defended you, you gave us nothing. We pressed you, you gave us nothing. We backed off, you gave us nothing. We pressed you again, you gave us nothing. You rarely addressed any rebuttals, instead just repeating the same arguments again and again, or when backed into a corner saying sarcastic things along the lines of, "You get a gold star, I'm gone."
In other words, it doesn't matter what we do, you're not willing to discuss this topic. All you really seem to be seeking is some kind of validation of your pseudo-scientific fallacies, and lacking that your next choice is a dramatic exit. You're just another drama queen like Faith.
I'm out.
Nobody wants you out if you're willing to discuss the topic, but if you're not then it's probably better if you stop posting about it. I think all we other participants in this thread are a bit fed up with all the informational research and explaining that you consistently ignore.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by purpledawn, posted 11-06-2007 6:53 PM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 147 of 185 (432580)
11-06-2007 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by purpledawn
11-06-2007 6:45 PM


Re: Bias and Malfeasance
purpledawn writes:
quote:
Again. Your gullibility is astounding.
You keep making it about me and I won't respond anymore.
This strategy has already been played to the hilt by others before you, it gets no sympathy here at EvC Forum. You cite pseudo-science sites like Edgar Cayce's psychic site, then you ignore all rebuttals, and you cite other similar things again and again while ignoring the rebuttals, and finally people become so frustrated that you can rebuke them for becoming personal.
You seem to think wasting all the time and effort people have put into researching information and constructing clear explanations is not anything to give any thought to, maybe you think we're just here for your entertainment. When you engage people in debate you have a responsibility to thoughtfully consider what they say and respond to it. Ignoring this responsibility is against the Forum Guidelines. Naturally this kind of behavior has a strong tendency to provoke further guideline violations, but that's your fault, not everyone else's. Provoking other people into Forum Guidelines violations is considered very bad form.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by purpledawn, posted 11-06-2007 6:45 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 148 of 185 (432589)
11-06-2007 10:09 PM


A comic for Purpledawn
This is so perfectly appropriate, I just had to post it here.
Obviously, for a scenario of this type to be turned into a comic, it must happen frequently, as PD and others have demonstrated.

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 149 of 185 (432623)
11-07-2007 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by nator
11-06-2007 8:55 PM


Re: Light Went Out
quote:
I don't like it that nobody in this thread will let me simply repeat myself over and over and that everybody in this thread keeps pressing me to actually respond to rebuttals.
Yeah, that's it. The cat is out of the bag. I'm glad that over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by nator, posted 11-06-2007 8:55 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 11-07-2007 11:13 AM purpledawn has replied

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


Message 150 of 185 (432626)
11-07-2007 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by purpledawn
11-07-2007 7:12 AM


Re: Light Went Out
purpledawn writes:
Yeah, that's it. The cat is out of the bag. I'm glad that over.
More sarcasm and drama with no mention of the topic, I see. Isn't irony wonderful!
If you're going to continue to post to this thread, I think it would be appreciated by the other participants if you'd please address the topic. If it would help I'd be glad to post a summary of what I see as the key issues on the table yet to be addressed, let me know.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by purpledawn, posted 11-07-2007 7:12 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by purpledawn, posted 11-10-2007 4:37 AM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024