Misunderstanding Empiricism

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.

My bad, you didn't see the light.I'm 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.

Let me ask you this.What do you feel I don't understand about empiricism that you feel I should understand about empiricism?

quote:

---

It isn't so much that you misunderstand empiricism as that you don't accept how different the confidence levels are between its application in anecdotal experience versus scientific method.

---

I do understand the difference in the level of confidence and accept the difference. The scientific method works well with things that can be measured.McGarey used whatever method MDs use in clinical diagnosis. The information in Message 120 came from the appendix. That's all there really is. Right now there is no scientific study concerning castor oil packs. So that level of confidence is not available. (From what I've seen so far they don't know what to measure.)In the absence of conclusive scientific studies, the individual has to rely on what is available and glean what they can from what science does know.

On a national or group level we agree. On an individual level we agree somewhat.I had to do some research and found that guilt by association is a logical fallacy as are some of the authority arguments presented.I don't see a foolproof method for the individual.

quote:

---

It appears to me that you haven't incorporated this scientific information into your individual experience at all.

---

Fascinating! What evidence leads you to that conclusion?

Yes

quote:

---

So just to make things clear, I didn't argue that guilt by association automatically makes something false. I argued that it tells you where best to direct your skepticism. And I didn't make any arguments from authority.

---

The authority one had nothing to do with your argument, just conceding that it is also one that popped up in the overall battle.Good to know that you're not saying that guilt by association automatically makes his work false.

quote:

---

You're just repeating your position without engaging the discussion again. Was my example of using a castor oil pack for a sprained ankle invalid? Misapplied? Misdirected? What? If you're not going to engage the discussion, PD, but just repeat your position, then please stop posting.

---

IMO, you're assuming the individual doesn't know how long it takes for their own sprain to heal. The R.I.C.E. method is the typical approach, but ice is advised for a short period of time (20 minutes). If the individual had no other sprain to compare the situation with, then yes I agree they can't tell if the pack did any better than the R.I.C.E. method.What exactly do you want from me Percy?
What exactly is the discussion I'm supposed to be engaging in?I've already agreed on a group and national level, so nothing left to discuss.
I've already agreed that personal experience is only hard evidence for the individual.
Now I've agreed that an individual with no prior injury experience before using a castor oil pack on an injury can't say whether the pack made a difference.What exactly do you want me to agree with?As far as my response to nator, I've made it quite clear that my personal choices are not up for discussion. If I don't provide an answer then she continues to hound. Now she can't say I haven't answered her.

Javaman,Thanks again for starting this thread, sorry I made a mess of it. I appreciate the effort.Since there apparently isn't a graceful way to put an end to my portion of this discussion, I'm officially removing myself from this discussion.Thanks all, it has been an eye opener.