Misunderstanding Empiricism

quote:

---

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

---

OK, correct me then.What did you actually do?

quote:

---

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

---

Then what did you mean when you said the following:

quote:

---

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. Personal experiences factor into how we deal with those interpretations.

---

It certainly seems to me that you were saying that, ideally, we would all be witness to the experiments and research to REALLY be sure of something. Otherwise, we need to rely on experts.This seems to imply that you think that scientific testing for safety and efficacy are a good thing.Now, my point is that you seem to have a double standard. It seems to us that you are very skeptical of some healthcare practices, but not of others.I guess what we wonder is what makes you decide to apply skepticism to some practices and not to others?I also wonder why you quoted Brittanica to me about remaining calm and detached. I haven't gotten personal, and I haven't gotten upset. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Hey Petro, if I started a thread on mind reading, would you be willing to discuss your claim?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

I'm saying that there's some fraud and some incompetence in science, as in any other field of human endeavour. Is that controversial?Are you expecting me to accept that there's no fraud and no incompetence in science? At all? Now if that were true I'd be very impressed. I guess that depends on which country you're living in .

---

'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

You do realize, I hope, that you're pulling a Faith.If you don't like the interpretations of what you're saying then you can't fail to consider that you must share some of the blame.I don't know what your responses to what I actually said might be, since you don't say, you've just ignored all the content of my last two replies to you, so I'll just repeat the way I see what you're doing.

1. You're treating traditional medicine with severe skepticism while being very accepting of naturopathy. This is both inconsistent and unscientific. There isn't anything remotely complex about this particular issue. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If scientifically supported medical claims deserve extreme scrutiny, then so do the claims of naturopathy.
   ​
   The issue isn't that you questioned Midol, as you seemed to imply I was saying. The issue is that you're questioning Midol but not castor oil packs. This is the basic question Nator asked way back in Message 35: why the extreme bias against traditional medicine while embracing naturopathic claims. I can only guess that there is something significantly appealing to you about claims of being "natural".
   ​
   A less biased approach would seek to compare the scientific evidence supporting Midol with that supporting castor oil packs. Finding the kind of scientific support typical of FDA approved drugs might be very difficult for something as old as Midol since it predates the FDA, it's probably grandfathered, you might want to pick something developed more recently, perhaps Alleve (naproxen).
   ​
   If you really believe I'm "creating a fictional character" when I say that you're placing far more stringent requirements on traditional medicine than on naturopathy then just let me know and I will quote you from your own messages. I am not making up the things you said.
   ​
2. Your requirements for accepting scientific studies are beyond reason, as is made clear when you said:
   ​
   PurpleDawn in Message 35 writes:

   ​

   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. Personal experiences factor into how we deal with those interpretations.
   ​
   If the only knowledge you accept is knowledge you gain firsthand, then there is very little knowledge you'll ever accept.

The problem isn't that I didn't understand your Message 50, rather it's that I did. When you say, "Show me that Midol Menstrual Complete works," why don't you also say, "And show me that castor oil packs work."I'm not making up the bias you're exhibiting. It's very obvious.--Percy

quote:

---

OK, correct me then.

​

What did you actually do?

---

Nice trick.You create a false statement and you have the audacity to require specific personal information for me to "clear my name".The castor oil thread was not about analyzing my personal choices. It was about whether castor oil packs work or are quackery.

quote:

---

Then what did you mean when you said the following:

​

quote:

---

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. Personal experiences factor into how we deal with those interpretations.

---

---

I meant exactly what it said. My statement dealt with the idea that the average person is at the mercy of battling experts. It has nothing to do with what I personally require or demand in any given situation.Jumping to the conclusion that I personally need to see studies first hand for some things, yet simply take a Naturopath's word for it concerning other things is false. You have no idea what I require for my personal decisions from either side.Why do you have the need to make this about me personally? It is difficult for someone to remain emotionally uncommitted or detached when you are trying to publicly criticize their personal life. It's even more frustrating when you're creating a false personal position and expecting the person to defend your illusion. That's what I mean by making it personal.Making things personal is a sales tactic, as well as recruiting and proselytizing. Whether this is also a debating technique to frazzle one's opponent, I don't know, but I'm not playing.

On issues about which experts are truly at odds, then obviously the average person can't know what conclusions to draw, but none of the issues we've discussed involve "battling experts." Whether it's vaccines or anti-depressive drugs or amalgam fillings or homeopathy or naturopathy, there is a genuine consensus of experts.So the actual situation is that you're giving people whose views are not backed by scientific evidence ("quacks") the status of experts, and then are giving their views equal value to those of genuine experts whose views *are* backed by scientific evidence (traditional medicine).This is a message I've been giving both you and LindaLou from the very beginning, and it hasn't changed. You can't give made up evidence or no evidence or anecdotal evidence the same weight as scientific evidence. There's simply no comparison. No matter how much non-scientific evidence you gather, it still adds up to very little when compared to scientific evidence.I do think there is a legitimate problem in the difficulty laypeople have of telling a faux expert from a real one, and I'm not sure there's much can be done to help them. Those who are vulnerable to certain types of claims, whether they're claims of "natural" or of possessing or of restoring "vital energies" or of "eliminating toxins" and so forth, are going to give such "experts" equal status with genuine experts whose views are supported by scientific evidence. About the only advice I can give you is to go with the views supported by science (in other words, the mainstream), and if that still leaves you unsure, then at least go with the views of those who graduated from a legitimate medical school, which while not as sure an approach is at least better than being taking advantage of by uneducated charlatans. Why don't you drop the indignance and just address the question: Why are you subjecting Midol to extreme scrutiny and not castor oil packs? That's what you're doing, we're not making this up. It's both inconsistent and unscientific. Why the double standard?--Percy

quote:

---

You do realize, I hope, that you're pulling a Faith.

---

Well then just call me purplefaith, because if you used these same comprehension skills with her that you have with me, I'm starting to sympathize with her.This is the last time I will address these. If you don't comprehend this time, there's no more I can say.

quote:

---

You're treating traditional medicine with severe skepticism while being very accepting of naturopathy. This is both inconsistent and unscientific. There isn't anything remotely complex about this particular issue. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If scientifically supported medical claims deserve extreme scrutiny, then so do the claims of naturopathy.

---

Message 4 of the Holistic Thread. Message 81Message 110Message 117I can't go through everything I've ever said, but I don't see severe skepticism for one side vs the other.

quote:

---

The issue isn't that you questioned Midol, as you seemed to imply I was saying. The issue is that you're questioning Midol but not castor oil packs. This is the basic question Nator asked way back in Message 35: why the extreme bias against traditional medicine while embracing naturopathic claims. I can only guess that there is something significantly appealing to you about claims of being "natural".

​

From you Message 96
Why don't you drop the indignance and just address the question: Why are you subjecting Midol to extreme scrutiny and not castor oil packs? That's what you're doing, we're not making this up. It's both inconsistent and unscientific. Why the double standard?

---

Good God Percy it has nothing to do with Midol. Pick whatever you damn well please! The point was to demonstrate to me how to show on a written forum that something works. I figured Midol was out there in the age range with Castor Oil packs, sorry it was too difficult.

quote:

---

If you really believe I'm "creating a fictional character" when I say that you're placing far more stringent requirements on traditional medicine than on naturopathy then just let me know and I will quote you from your own messages. I am not making up the things you said.

---

Go for it! My question would be did you actually comprehend what I said.

quote:

---

If the only knowledge you accept is knowledge you gain firsthand, then there is very little knowledge you'll ever accept.

---

My comments in Message 24 and Message 38 are not referring to what I accept or don't accept personally. Get over it!

quote:

---

The problem isn't that I didn't understand your Message 50, rather it's that I did. When you say, "Show me that Midol Menstrual Complete works," why don't you also say, "And show me that castor oil packs work."

---

Why would I ask nator to show me that castor oil packs work, when that is what she is asking me?Quite frankly, you're bordering on harassment concerning these personal issues. The worst part is you're harassing me to address what I haven't said. Back off Percy! Get out of my personal space.

Percy and Nator, can I ask you to make the debate with PurpleDawn less personal? Having read some of the debate between the three of you, I can understand her frustration.PurpleDawn seems a pretty sensible woman. Why are you insulting her judgement so much? Not every question she is asking represents her own position. She's trying to have a rational debate by exploring the subject. Please don't jump to conclusions so quickly.

---

'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

Hi PD,You seem to think this is a one way street, that you're the only one upset and frustrated and indignant about the way you and your posts are being treated. You're not. You're just the only one giving voice to it. I know it has nothing to do with Midol specifically, and that's why I suggested, in the very message you're replying to, that Alleve (naproxen) would be more a appropriate example of modern scientific approaches to drug testing since Midol predates the FDA. Actually, what we're asking you is why you demand severe scrutiny of traditional medical alternatives and not naturopathic. A fair division of labor would have Nator looking up the research supporting Alleve, while you looked up the research supporting something naturopathic (not castor oil packs if they truly predate the FDA, something much more recent).Or, if you'd rather just look at scientific papers, ask Nator to fix those broken links to papers and let's look at them together.We've actually already done something somewhat similar when it was demonstrated that the scientific evidence supports the safety of vaccines, anti-depressants and amalgam fillings. It was after these exercises that it was claimed that there can still be problems that science hasn't uncovered. The response was that while this was true, the problems must be very subtle or affect a very small subset of the population. Certainly any effects indetectable by science would be far beyond the reach of much less rigorous anecdotal approaches. These are not personal issues. You say that you're equally skeptical of both traditional and naturopathic medicine, and even if that were true, the question still remains of why you're equally sceptical of both scientific and non-scientific approaches. In other words, why are you as sceptical of the approach that has peer-reviewed placebo-based double-blind studies as you are of the approach that has little to none of these.But it's difficult to accept your claim of equal scepticism, because the evidence strongly suggests that you're *more* sceptical of scientific approaches than non-scientific approaches, and I would argue like this: Aren't you against vaccines? And doesn't the scientific evidence support both the safety and efficacy of vaccines? And isn't the evidence against their safety anecdotal? So doesn't this mean you value anecdotal evidence more than scientific evidence?And so not only is it inconsistent to dole out different levels of scepticism to scientific versus non-scientific claims, it's makes even less sense to be more sceptical of the scientific claims. And this is why your denials that you're more sceptical of science lack credibility. It's nothing personal, I'm just going by what you say.--Percy

If you don't think PD is being contradictory, and if you understand what she's trying to say, it would be a great help if you would explain it to us.--Percy

quote:

---

Aren't you against vaccines?

---

My personal preference is none of your business.Show me that I made a case against vaccines or that I have advocated that everyone should stop getting vaccines.

That's an unusually defensive response if you're not actually against vaccines. I didn't have to search long, it's your first message in the prior thread. Here's a quote from that message (Message 2): In other words, even though studies have found vaccine risks to be extremely low compared with the risks associated with the diseases themselves, you still expressed scepticism that they were safe.What's more, this scepticism is far greater than what you express for naturopathic approaches, and I say that simply because we never see any scepticism from you for naturopathic approaches, only for traditional medicines. For instance in Message 12 of the same thread you say: Herbs have very little of the formal testing of FDA approved drugs, and in fact are little more than dirty drugs since their content is highly variable and includes many compounds whose effect on the body isn't well understood. Yet you defend herbs while questioning vaccines.PD, I don't know why you're claiming you're not doing what your own words show you doing. You give the surface appearance of honest exploration, which is what originally brought me to your defense, and I assume this is what also caused JavaMan to come to your aid, but it only takes a short while for the problems to become apparent. I'd like to explore these medical issues with you, but I can't if that means having to accept a "through the looking glass" world. There has to be a rational starting point, and I can't begin such a journey with someone who claims one thing and does another. I have to sort out the conflicts first, which is what I'm trying to do.--Percy

quote:

---

I'm saying that there's some fraud and some incompetence in science, as in any other field of human endeavour. Is that controversial?

---

No.However, incompetence is weeded out very quickly, contrary to your claim,, since incompetent scientists won't have a very easy time getting funding, or getting their papers published, or in attracting graduate students, or earning tenure. In fact, I would say that most incompetence in science is self-selected out, as people who can't handle Doctoral level work don't ever earn one.Are there scientists with greater and lesser talent and skill? Of course. But incompetent scientists surviving professionally for a long time? That's unlikely simply due to the nature of the profession. You might have heard the expression, "publish or perish"?Dishonesty is rarer still, for the reasons I've already explained. Science can only function if the published research is reported honestly, since all science is based upon the work of others. An academic scientist who falsifies data and is caught (which will probably happen as soon as someone tries to replicate their work) will, quite literally, end their career.Are there frauds in science? Yes, of course. My contention, however, is that they are far, far less common than in most other professions, and are most rare among high-profile scientists, since their work is the most scrutinized.

I am reminded of the couple of scientists that supposedly discovered a way to induce cold fusion. After the ordeal, they couldn't even sell used cars.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Yup. Mentioned them already.