Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misunderstanding Empiricism
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 9 of 185 (430764)
10-27-2007 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JavaMan
10-26-2007 8:48 AM


Hi JavaMan,
I think Taz and PaulK have already provided the correct answers, but in sum, no one was claiming anecdotal data was without any value whatsoever. In fact, I think it was said on at least several occasions that when anecdotal data is all you have, then that's what you go with. And I know that I said many, many times to LindaLou that her problem was looking at both the anecdotal and the scientific data, and then judging the anecdotal data superior.
Correcting just a few things:
...but many of the most respected debaters here seem to have been suggesting that science is the only way we can acquire trustworthy knowledge about the world.
The scientific method isn't the only way to acquire trustworthy knowledge. Rather, the scientific method is the best way to acquire trustworthy knowledge.
But whether it is better to use personal experience or the scientific method depends upon what you're studying. Is the light red and should you stop? The scientific method would be immense overkill in this situation, not to mention too slow.
But how about the question of whether there a relationship between vaccines and autism. This is a much more subtle question and requires a scientific approach to establish the nature of the relationship, if any.
Now, in the thread Sequel Thread to Holistic Doctors and Medicine, a lurker would have been justified in concluding that most of the pro-science debaters on that thread were making the following two claims:
1. That it was possible to acquire certainty or near-certainty about controversial medical issues by reading scientific literature;
The actual claim was that you could learn the current state of knowledge on medical issues by reading the technical literature. It wouldn't make any sense to claim that reading papers leads to certainty, because many, many papers reach no certain conclusion.
2. That allowing yourself to be swayed by personal experience or by anecdote would in some way be 'unempirical'.
The actual claim wasn't that personal experience and anecdotal data are unempirical, but that they are far inferior to scientific investigation and analysis
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JavaMan, posted 10-26-2007 8:48 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by JavaMan, posted 10-28-2007 4:25 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 18 of 185 (430974)
10-28-2007 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by JavaMan
10-28-2007 4:25 PM


JavaMan writes:
The first question doesn't require a definitive conclusion. To reach a scientific consensus, it is only necessary that we exclude reasonable doubt. There's also no time constraint on our investigation - if it takes 10 years to reach a consensus, then it takes 10 years.
The second question requires a decision: either my child has the jab, or she doesn't. And I need to make the decision by the middle of next month.
I already addressed just such a situation in the very message you replied to when I mentioned that I had told LindaLou several times that when all you have is anecdotal data, then that's what you go with.
But the dilemma you describe does not exist because there is already a scientific consensus on this matter, and there has been for a while now. The threat of autism or anything else was never real, as additional studies motivated by concerns from the public make clear.
What the scientific evidence also tells you, unequivocally, is that the probability of death, not to mention lesser problems, from such diseases is by no means zero, not even for something as innocuous seeming as measles, and is certainly greater than the threat of the vaccine itself. Plus there's a public safety issue.
But the important point was that there was never any misunderstanding of empiricism. Any observation of the real world is empirical. It's just that not all observations possess the scientific qualities of precision, rigour and repeatability.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by JavaMan, posted 10-28-2007 4:25 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by JavaMan, posted 10-29-2007 9:22 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 20 of 185 (431016)
10-28-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Taz
10-28-2007 6:32 PM


Taz writes:
JavaMan writes:
I don't disagree with anything you say, although I would just note the following:
So Percy and I have slight a difference of opinion.
I wouldn't consider JavaMan's brief quote to be an accurate description of my opinion. If it could be summed up so briefly I wouldn't have posted a multi-paragraph response to him. One of the things I said was that if the question is whether the light is red and should you stop, then personal observation is just fine, especially since a more rigorous scientific approach involving quantitative measurement and replication is neither practical nor necessary. I then added that the question of whether vaccines and autism are related is much more subtle and is a case where a scientific approach is more suitable and even essential.
The simple point is that there are certain questions that are appropriate for scientific investigation, and without doubt the relationship between vaccines and autism is one of them. There's no attempt to portray personal observation as worthless. The point is that if on the one hand you have a collection of personal observations, what we usually call anecdotes, and on the other you have scientific studies, then scientific studies win out because they are far more reliable, rigorous, precise, accurate, etc. The scientific method is the best way we have, by far, for giving ourselves confidence about what we know of the real world.
Why this point isn't clear to PD and LL and JM and NJ and others is beyond me, but the prevalence of people of such an inclination makes it clear why it is so difficult to convince anyone concerning issues like creation/evolution, 911 conspiracies, UFOs, ESP, faith healing and all the rest.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 10-28-2007 6:32 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by JavaMan, posted 10-29-2007 5:35 AM Percy has replied
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 10-29-2007 8:09 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 25 of 185 (431088)
10-29-2007 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by JavaMan
10-29-2007 5:35 AM


Re: Rhetoric, not reason
JavaMan, you're more likely to get an answer by posting responses to what I say instead of with ad hominem.
You weren't associated with irrational beliefs. You were included with a group of people who do not distinguish between anecdotal and scientific evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by JavaMan, posted 10-29-2007 5:35 AM JavaMan has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 27 of 185 (431098)
10-29-2007 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by purpledawn
10-29-2007 8:09 AM


purpledawn writes:
Wow, I made the illogical list just because I'm trying to show you that the average person is at the mercy of battling experts.
Two responses to this.
First, you did not make the illogical list. You were included in a list of people who do not distinguish between anecdotal and scientific evidence.
Second, the problem is not that the average person is at the mercy of battling experts. The problem is that the average person can't tell the difference between an expert and a charlatan, or between a scientific consensus and fringe views. For example, the experts say that vaccines are safe, and they have the evidence to support that view. The charlatans say vaccines are not safe, and all they have is websites and misrepresentations.
I do understand, but I also understand the way society works.
Even better would be to understand how reality works, because it has a big impact on what you say next:
If we could see the experiment or study first hand, there would be no problem, but we don't usually have that option. The average person is at the mercy of the interpretations of others. (experts, authority, etc.)
If you're only going to trust knowledge gained at close hand, then there will be exceedingly little knowledge that you ever trust. That's reality. So if you want to know more than just a smidgen you're going to have to trust experts, which is just what scientists do outside their own specialty. Again, that's reality.
I've lived long enough to know that experts can be right within the limits of the information available to them. I also know that scientists can be wrong, peers can be wrong, doctors can be wrong. Experts can be wrong. I also know that some discoveries that change the way we do things today were not considered viable by their peers.
You keep making this point, and the answer isn't going to change. No one's claiming science and scientists don't make mistakes. But the point you're either ignoring or just not getting is that science is still the best method we have for figuring out the way the world works. Whatever its faults and problems might be, it is still far superior to anything else.
You say for perhaps the umpteenth time, "Experts can be wrong," but I don't know why you keep repeating this, because the response has never been, "No, experts cannot be wrong." The response has always been, "However wrong experts might be, anyone else is likely to be wronger."
You say you want transparency and control, i.e., you want to know how knowledge was gained and you want to understand it, and you want the right to make decisions about your children and yourself regarding all matters of health, but consider that if you were living back in the 1920's and the board of health slapped a quarantine notice on your front door, if you left the house you could be arrested. How's that for loss of control!
Ignorance of the history of epidemics is causing you to advocate in favor of a system of voluntary compliance that will return us to the time of epidemics, and indeed we're already seeing evidence of this. You have to vaccinate your children before enrolling them in the public schools not so much to protect just your children, but to protect all children in our society, because only a general program of vaccination can provide the level of immunity in a population that makes it impossible for diseases to gain a foothold. You live in a society, and society has the right to protect itself from dangers. Your family is not a group of hermits in a cave, so you have to live by the rules of society. But the era of epidemics is so far in the past and modern vaccines have been so successful that people no longer remember or understand the very real dangers that these diseases represent.
The average person gets mixed signals.
Okay, so let's say you're an average person getting mixed signals. The answer is to listen to the experts. The real experts, not the self-appointed ones with their own websites or who publish in their own journals.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 10-29-2007 8:09 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by purpledawn, posted 10-29-2007 1:43 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 32 of 185 (431107)
10-29-2007 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by JavaMan
10-29-2007 9:22 AM


If you said anything I disagree with I couldn't find it, but I did see this terminological problem:
JavaMan writes:
As I've said to Taz and Crashfrog, my point in opening this thread was to show that the power of empiricism doesn't lie in its providing a special methodology for arriving at the truth, but in its emphasis on the provisional nature of our knowledge.
It isn't empiricism that provides a special methodology, but science. And it isn't empiricism which declares our knowledge provisional, but science. Empirism is not a framework within which science works. Rather, science employs empiricism as part of the method.
In other words, and coming back to the main issue, and saying something that from what I've read so far it seems you agree with, it isn't the case that science uses empiricism and personal experience does not. Rather, it's that science employs methods that make much better use of empiricism than personal experience. At heart all scientifically gathered evidence derives from the personal experiences (observations, measurements, etc.) of scientists, but science adds to these personal experiences a rigor and analysis not present with just personal experience alone.
What is grossly deficient with the websites and naturopaths that LindaLou draws upon is any semblance of rigor and analysis. A website of anecdotal recollections is almost totally without value when compared to double-blind placebo-based replicated studies.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by JavaMan, posted 10-29-2007 9:22 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by JavaMan, posted 10-30-2007 6:38 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 34 of 185 (431149)
10-29-2007 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by purpledawn
10-29-2007 1:43 PM


Re: Science
purpledawn writes:
BTW my issue in this isn't concerning vaccines, it's just general. My issue is with being told one MD is right and another is wrong or one study is right but another is wrong etc., etc. It doesn't matter whether it is vaccines, surgery, supplements, etc.
I think this issue has been addressed at least several times, and the answer hasn't changed. The average layperson who insists on making his own assessments of complex scientific evidence but has no background or familiarity with science has one of two choices. He can embark upon a lengthy period of study that will probably be filled with many missteps and misunderstandings if he doesn't have some scientific aptitude (and he probably doesn't, else he'd already be familiar with science because he had found he was good at it while still in school), or he can wing it and become terribly confused.
We aren't all equally gifted. Some people can play the piano, some, like me, can only make noise no matter how hard we try (and God knows I've tried). Some people "get" science, some don't. So if you don't "get" science you'll probably a never "get" science, just like I'll never "get" piano (I think I've proven that by now, certainly my wife would agree). So if you insist on looking at the evidence yourself and making up your own mind, only confusion and frustration will result, just like we're seeing. My advice hasn't changed: listen to experts, avoid the quacks, get your children vaccinated.
Since my daughter's birth was covered under the military, I had five different doctor's to deal with during the pregnancy. Four missed the fact that there was a problem, but the fifth caught it.
But the solution wasn't to visit a quack, I hope.
There are dentists who say wisdom teeth should come out. Others say no need unless there is a problem and there are many ideas of what constitutes a problem.
There is no wisdom tooth controversy.
Are those not our experts? If they are, then what makes one practicing doctor right and one wrong?
There can be legitimate differences of opinion between experts, but vaccinating your children isn't such an issue, and this thread was begun by JavaMan because of just such confusions exhibited in the vaccination discussions. I know you're not talking about vaccinations now, but that's where this issue began.
I know you find what appear to you to be different legitimate opinions as indicating uncertainty, and I know that this is very common among laypeople. Sites like this one want to help as much as possible to alleviate the confusion. But don't assume that just because you can't find your way through the maze of information that the experts don't have any good answers, because that's definitely not the case for the issues we've been discussing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by purpledawn, posted 10-29-2007 1:43 PM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by JavaMan, posted 10-30-2007 7:00 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 40 of 185 (431272)
10-30-2007 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by purpledawn
10-30-2007 7:45 AM


purpledawn writes:
The average person does not have first hand access to experiments or studies. We are at the mercy of the interpretations of others. We are trained to take "experts" at their word. An expert is someone who has training. MDs, NDs, Nutritionists, etc. have training. We have been programmed.
What you mean "we"? I'm not programmed to blindly accept the advice of mainstream medicine, and most obviously you are not so programmed, so who are you talking about?
The answer is that you're talking about a stereotype, the one about the all-knowing, all-seeing doctor who is supported in his knowledge by flawless science that can't be questioned. I see no one here at this site who buys into this stereotype, but a lot of criticism of the stereotype itself. It's time to stop beating this dead horse.
You say you're at the mercy of the interpretations of others, and by others I assume you mean the medical establishment, but who would be a better source of medical advice? There are no better alternatives out there. Maybe you can't be convinced that the medical establishment can be trusted, but however good or bad they may be, they are far, far better than any alternative, and the evidence of history and all the diseases and conditions conquered supports this view.
Watching the experiments or studies first hand, would be hard evidence and would probably leave little to the imagination. Unfortunately the average person doesn't have that option. The average person is at the mercy of the interpretations of others.
As I said earlier, if the only knowledge you trust is knowledge you either gather yourself or observe being gathered by others, then there is only a smidgen of knowledge that you'll ever accept. Obviously that is a completely unrealistic approach to knowledge, and all you're really doing is bemoaning a common aspect of the human condition. There are far more constructive avenues down which to direct any critical analysis.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 10-30-2007 7:45 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 185 (431465)
10-31-2007 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by JavaMan
10-30-2007 6:38 PM


Re: Science and Empricism
JavaMan writes:
As Brad says, it depends how you see the class relations of science and empiricism. Does science share all the properties of empiricism? Or are there properties of empiricism that science doesn't share?
I don't know. Why are you asking me? Don't you already know why you hold your position? You said that empiricism provides a methodology for science, and I pointed out that it is science, not empiricism, that provides a methodology, that science only employs empiricism, that science is not contained within empiricism. If you have a different view on this then you'll have to tell rather than ask me what it is.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by JavaMan, posted 10-30-2007 6:38 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by JavaMan, posted 10-31-2007 9:12 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 54 of 185 (431466)
10-31-2007 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by JavaMan
10-30-2007 7:00 PM


Re: Science
JavaMan writes:
I think any intelligent person can have a good crack at understanding the fundamentals of a scientific field with a few weeks research.
Then how do you explain creationists and anti-vaccinationists and UFO-ologists and all the rest of the woo-woo crowd? Such people would appear to represent evidence that we do not all have equal potential for learning a scientific approach to the assessment of evidence.
The complexity of a scientific field lies in the detail, detail that you need to master if you want to make a career in science, but not if all you want to do is make a judgement based on the current scientific consensus.
Would that it were so. As PurpleDawn has related, for her the problem is that she sees a difference of opinion between equally legitimate experts, while a cursory investigation reveals that the difference is really between mainstream science and quacks.
As PurpleDawn and LindaLou have said many times, experts and/or the scientific consensus can be wrong. No one would ever argue with that, because it is most certainly true. But they use this fact to draw two false conclusions. First, they conclude that because experts can be wrong that therefore they likely are wrong concerning whatever the pet issue is. And second, they conclude that the opinion of people who can be wrong is no better than anyone else's opinion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by JavaMan, posted 10-30-2007 7:00 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by JavaMan, posted 11-01-2007 7:06 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 57 of 185 (431473)
10-31-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by JavaMan
10-31-2007 8:53 AM


Re: Science and Reality (the political kind)
I'm not sure I see the relationship of what you say to empiricism, but you're endorsing the same mistakes that already drive the opinions of people like PurpleDawn and LindaLou. Any qualities of the human condition, including the ones you mention like ego, money and politics, can influence science, but they influence everything else, too. Everything people do contains these flaws, not just science. You mention this at the end of your post, but only in parentheses when it should actually be in bold capitals, because it completely invalidates the basis of your criticism.
What distinguishes science from all other ways of knowing is its consensus-driven self-correcting nature. It was science that discovered that the theory of humours and bleeding and vitalistic theories like chiropractic were invalid, and distrusting science merely because it is a human endeavor would be to ignore its record of success in reducing and even sometimes eliminating disease while extending lifetimes. Whatever might be the impact of the human condition on science, the record of success indicates that it must be very, very small. The scientific approach is designed to reduce the impact of human foibles, and the evidence of history is that it does a very good job of this.
Science is not perfect, and no one claims it is, and certainly when science combines with the profit motive you're going to have problems like thalidomide and Vioxx, but this is just evidence that science isn't perfect, which, of course, we already knew. The big mistake that too many people like PurpleDawn and LindaLou make is concluding from this that science can't be trusted and is really no better, or is even inferior to, anecdotal approaches. And, returning to the thread's topic, the problem stems from a lack of comprehension of just how essential is a scientific approach (which includes empiricism) to obtaining an accurate understanding of the real world.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by JavaMan, posted 10-31-2007 8:53 AM JavaMan has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 59 of 185 (431476)
10-31-2007 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by JavaMan
10-31-2007 9:12 AM


Re: Science and Empricism
So I half agree with you and half don't.
Well, I'm glad you only half agree with me since you're half wrong.
Science is a form of empirical enquiry, so science shares all the properties of empiricism, including the view that our knowledge of the world is provisional.
The provisional quality is a property of science, not of empiricism.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by JavaMan, posted 10-31-2007 9:12 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by JavaMan, posted 10-31-2007 5:44 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 65 of 185 (431536)
10-31-2007 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by JavaMan
10-31-2007 5:44 PM


Re: Science and Empiricism
I was unable to confirm that your historical account of empiricism is correct. Check out "empiricism" and "John Locke" at Wikipedia.
The modern definition of science is that it is empirical, tentative, replicable. Whatever roots concepts like tentativity might have had in historical empiricism, and that I was unable to verify, that isn't the way we view empiricism today. We don't say that science is tentative because it is empirical. Rather, we say science is empirical and tentative, separate concepts.
I don't see this as an issue worth much discussion time, though. We both view science as tentative, and if you prefer to see the origins of tentativity in empiricism, go ahead.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by JavaMan, posted 10-31-2007 5:44 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by JavaMan, posted 11-01-2007 8:45 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 80 by Modulous, posted 11-01-2007 5:22 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 82 by JavaMan, posted 11-01-2007 6:48 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 70 of 185 (431632)
11-01-2007 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by purpledawn
11-01-2007 1:52 AM


Re: Show Me
Hi PD,
I've been hoping for an answer to this question that Nator posed back in Message 35:
Nator in Message 35 writes:
But PD, we already know that for various health care related things like your castor oil packs, you never required that studies showing their effectiveness for what you are using them for even existed.
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?
From where I sit your behavior appears absolutely perverse in the extreme. You're requiring links to studies and explanations of those studies and then re-explanations of those studies and then studies showing that ingredients in combination work, and it never seems enough, you just go on demanding more and more.
Yet a naturopath tells you something and that's good enough for you all by itself.
How about a little consistency and balance?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by purpledawn, posted 11-01-2007 1:52 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by purpledawn, posted 11-01-2007 2:32 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 72 of 185 (431627)
11-01-2007 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by purpledawn
11-01-2007 8:59 AM


Re: Science and Reality (the political kind)
purpledawn writes:
Implying that all who stray from the traditional are quacks, doesn't show anyone anything and isn't looking at the science.
No one has said that something is quackery because it isn't part of mainstream medicine. That would be like saying criminals are criminals because they're in jail, and that certainly isn't the way it works. You're leading with the conclusion and leaving out the rationale.
Medical approaches do not become accepted as safe and effective simply because they're part of mainstream medicine. Rather, they're judged safe and effective because scientific studies have demonstrated these qualities, and these positive qualities cause them to be accepted as part of mainstream medicine.
Quackery isn't quackery because it's rejected by mainstream medicine. Rather, it's quackery because it isn't supported by scientific studies of safety and effectiveness that would have allowed it to become accepted by mainstream medicine, assuming the studies had positive outcomes.
I really wanted them to get down to the science.
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.
I do see a bit of a problem with Nator's links:
Nator: Half your links in Message 58 and your link in Message 69 do not work. This means you haven't provided references to any studies at all, just prescription info pages.
Unfortunately a debate isn't a place to discuss possibilities. It's pick a side and hang on. In some of these I've hung on to try and get a better answer, but to no avail.
Please, PD, several of us have spent lots of time working to craft as effective explanations as we can for you. Let's have none of this LindaLou/Faith style "poor me, I'm treated so unfairly" stuff. Just using myself as an example, I've repeated the explanation that begins this message many times now to you, yet you can still imply that we're jumping to the conclusion that anything that isn't traditional medicine is quackery, when it is actually the lack of scientific support that makes something quackery.
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.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by purpledawn, posted 11-01-2007 8:59 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by purpledawn, posted 11-01-2007 1:58 PM 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