Common Sense: Part II
(See my previous post for the comments I'm responding to)
Ahhh ... Erin ... much like the person whose original post started this discussion, you too have the nasty habit of ignoring or avoiding the lion's share of what I write and simply pressing on with telling me what you think ... regardless of whether or not it's related. For instance, I notice you continue to insist that words mean whatever you think they do, and although you approach it in a different manner, you're still insisting that formal education is somehow negative. Plus, you have a real knack for invoking logical fallacies. I notice this time the ad homenim fallacy is particularly prevalent, so let's start there.
While it's totally irrelevant to how science works, or what the scientific evidence says, or the existence of a magical sky-god of some sort, my life is neither sad nor empty. I'm also not at all angry that someone disagrees with me. I'm used to being disagreed with. In fact, I encourage my students to disagree with me ... especially if they can sustain and back up their positions with logic, reason and valid, objective evidence. Nonetheless, in a country where roughly 90% of the population believes in a magic sky-god, has minimal understanding of science, and votes either Demopublican or Republicrat - I'm usually solidly in the minority. Yet I continue to indulge in discussions like this one. I actually kind of enjoy them. It's one of my many satisfying hobbies.
Now, continuing on the ad hominem theme, accusing me of being an "elitist" doesn't change that a.) the majority of the population is intellectually average or worse (the Bell Curve) b.) the majority of the population makes very poor decisions on the whole (look at levels of household debt, irresponsible breeding practices, electing Clinton, Bush & Obama, pop music, network television, etc.) and c.) appears to put more thought into the car they drive or the clothes they wear than they put into their theological or political perspectives. Truth is not a democratically arrived at thing, and neither is logic or science. It doesn't matter what people think: evidence is the what makes or breaks a position.
And speaking of evidence, I'd love to see something other than hyperbole to support your claim that "alternative" medicine has a solid basis in science. A fair bit of stolen taxpayer loot is funneled into the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine every year, and yet when push comes to shove, it always turns out the same: if a natural thing can be proven, under controlled, replicable scientific conditions, to be effective in treating a given ailment or condition, it becomes medicine. If it can't, it's just magical thinking. In fact, this is where your profound ignorance of science and the scientific method becomes readily apparent: no reputable scientist would object to any new herb / leaf / root / practice if it could be proven to work according to the scientific method. Pharmaceutical companies would like it too -- because they could produce it and sell it (and if you really want a surprise, look at how many big pharmaceutical companies also manufacture a lot of the herbs, supplements and other products that the "alternative" folks hawk). Just to repeat myself again, science isn't a belief ... it's a methodology. But when something that is demonstrably nonsense (i.e. homeopathy) and has been repeatedly proven to be nonsense continues to be trotted out as "alternative" medicine, don't be shocked if it's called nonsense. But if you can produce actual studies (or links to actual studies) of some kind of magic thinking that you consider to be "scientific", I'd happily look them over.
Another thing that you obviously fail to grasp about science is that anecdotes do not make science (they don't stand up in court either). Knowing a person or two who have had a particular experience establishes at most one thing: the person you know has had a particular experience. That's all an anecdote proves ... if it hasn't been colored or filtered through a particular perspective. Statistical relevance requires more than a few carefully chosen examples. Otherwise, you're just cherry-picking to prove your point. For instance, as a libertarian, I absolutely support the right of the individual to choose whatever treatment they wish to undergo, from whomever they wish to receive it from. If you wish to trust a physician who believes in both "alternative" medicine and a magic sky-god ... be my guest. But that hardly proves the validity of a person's credentials or the extent of their abilities. That could only be established by doing research into the status of their medical license, the results they've had, the complaints filed against them, etc. While belief allows one to simply decide what is or is not true on the spur of the moment, a reasoned approach takes time and effort.
And speaking of taking time and effort, I fully understand (as someone who does a lot of writing), that in the draft phase of any writing project, one simply tries to get ideas onto the screen before they evaporate. This happens to me all the time as well. But one of the many signs of both education and attentiveness to detail is putting in the extra effort to actually use the spell-checker, as well as to re-read and edit what you've written. It not only makes it easier for your readers to follow your argument, but it lends credibility to your position if only because it makes you sound like a literate person instead of someone who just sat down at the computer and rambled. Perhaps this too is elitist of me ... but then again ... it is a part of the formal education I've received: the same one for which you have so much disdain.
Finally, I must chuckle at your need to make political threats against me regarding what the heroic conservative movement is going to accomplish in 2012 and how it's going to fix my wagon. As with so much of your thinking, you obviously really don't have a clue what a libertarian is, or that the libertarian position simply does not lend itself to being pegged on the traditional right-left spectrum. Should you be interested, a simple illustration can be found here. But in a nutshell, libertarians value both personal and economic liberty, and hence oppose the welfare-warfare state as it currently exists. Moreover, if in days like these, when our currency is being debased, our liberties are being eroded, and our economy is poised to crash and burn ... your biggest concern is overturning Roe vs. Wade, well ... it explains much to me about why you believe in magical sky-gods, magical "alternative" medicine charlatans, and the wisdom of the common people.
Ahhh ... Erin ... much like the person whose original post started this discussion, you too have the nasty habit of ignoring or avoiding the lion's share of what I write and simply pressing on with telling me what you think ... regardless of whether or not it's related. For instance, I notice you continue to insist that words mean whatever you think they do, and although you approach it in a different manner, you're still insisting that formal education is somehow negative. Plus, you have a real knack for invoking logical fallacies. I notice this time the ad homenim fallacy is particularly prevalent, so let's start there.
While it's totally irrelevant to how science works, or what the scientific evidence says, or the existence of a magical sky-god of some sort, my life is neither sad nor empty. I'm also not at all angry that someone disagrees with me. I'm used to being disagreed with. In fact, I encourage my students to disagree with me ... especially if they can sustain and back up their positions with logic, reason and valid, objective evidence. Nonetheless, in a country where roughly 90% of the population believes in a magic sky-god, has minimal understanding of science, and votes either Demopublican or Republicrat - I'm usually solidly in the minority. Yet I continue to indulge in discussions like this one. I actually kind of enjoy them. It's one of my many satisfying hobbies.
Now, continuing on the ad hominem theme, accusing me of being an "elitist" doesn't change that a.) the majority of the population is intellectually average or worse (the Bell Curve) b.) the majority of the population makes very poor decisions on the whole (look at levels of household debt, irresponsible breeding practices, electing Clinton, Bush & Obama, pop music, network television, etc.) and c.) appears to put more thought into the car they drive or the clothes they wear than they put into their theological or political perspectives. Truth is not a democratically arrived at thing, and neither is logic or science. It doesn't matter what people think: evidence is the what makes or breaks a position.
And speaking of evidence, I'd love to see something other than hyperbole to support your claim that "alternative" medicine has a solid basis in science. A fair bit of stolen taxpayer loot is funneled into the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine every year, and yet when push comes to shove, it always turns out the same: if a natural thing can be proven, under controlled, replicable scientific conditions, to be effective in treating a given ailment or condition, it becomes medicine. If it can't, it's just magical thinking. In fact, this is where your profound ignorance of science and the scientific method becomes readily apparent: no reputable scientist would object to any new herb / leaf / root / practice if it could be proven to work according to the scientific method. Pharmaceutical companies would like it too -- because they could produce it and sell it (and if you really want a surprise, look at how many big pharmaceutical companies also manufacture a lot of the herbs, supplements and other products that the "alternative" folks hawk). Just to repeat myself again, science isn't a belief ... it's a methodology. But when something that is demonstrably nonsense (i.e. homeopathy) and has been repeatedly proven to be nonsense continues to be trotted out as "alternative" medicine, don't be shocked if it's called nonsense. But if you can produce actual studies (or links to actual studies) of some kind of magic thinking that you consider to be "scientific", I'd happily look them over.
Another thing that you obviously fail to grasp about science is that anecdotes do not make science (they don't stand up in court either). Knowing a person or two who have had a particular experience establishes at most one thing: the person you know has had a particular experience. That's all an anecdote proves ... if it hasn't been colored or filtered through a particular perspective. Statistical relevance requires more than a few carefully chosen examples. Otherwise, you're just cherry-picking to prove your point. For instance, as a libertarian, I absolutely support the right of the individual to choose whatever treatment they wish to undergo, from whomever they wish to receive it from. If you wish to trust a physician who believes in both "alternative" medicine and a magic sky-god ... be my guest. But that hardly proves the validity of a person's credentials or the extent of their abilities. That could only be established by doing research into the status of their medical license, the results they've had, the complaints filed against them, etc. While belief allows one to simply decide what is or is not true on the spur of the moment, a reasoned approach takes time and effort.
And speaking of taking time and effort, I fully understand (as someone who does a lot of writing), that in the draft phase of any writing project, one simply tries to get ideas onto the screen before they evaporate. This happens to me all the time as well. But one of the many signs of both education and attentiveness to detail is putting in the extra effort to actually use the spell-checker, as well as to re-read and edit what you've written. It not only makes it easier for your readers to follow your argument, but it lends credibility to your position if only because it makes you sound like a literate person instead of someone who just sat down at the computer and rambled. Perhaps this too is elitist of me ... but then again ... it is a part of the formal education I've received: the same one for which you have so much disdain.
Finally, I must chuckle at your need to make political threats against me regarding what the heroic conservative movement is going to accomplish in 2012 and how it's going to fix my wagon. As with so much of your thinking, you obviously really don't have a clue what a libertarian is, or that the libertarian position simply does not lend itself to being pegged on the traditional right-left spectrum. Should you be interested, a simple illustration can be found here. But in a nutshell, libertarians value both personal and economic liberty, and hence oppose the welfare-warfare state as it currently exists. Moreover, if in days like these, when our currency is being debased, our liberties are being eroded, and our economy is poised to crash and burn ... your biggest concern is overturning Roe vs. Wade, well ... it explains much to me about why you believe in magical sky-gods, magical "alternative" medicine charlatans, and the wisdom of the common people.
posted by DrJDG @ 01:40
1 Comments:
At 15/6/11 10:44,
Anonymous said…
i love to write too and i do know how to do everything the right way and if i needed to i would. i just don't feel the need to on here, so you should probably get over it.
i'll start with your ending. i clearly understand what state our economy is in, as well as the pathetic state of our government. this is one of the main reasons i think it is so important to overturn roe vs wade. what kind of a nation murders it's most innocent of people? what kind of liberty do we have if we take away the rights of american babies to live? until we get this overturned,their is no credibility for making the big decisions.
i'm not going to do the work for you (i always wanted to say this back to a teacher)if you're interested in finding scientific info on alternative medicine, look no further than the web. there are studies everywhere on this subject. there is a problem with your theory on herbs and other alternatives becoming medicine if they were really any good. you should know that the drug companys are in the business of making drugs they can make huge profits off of. who's going to pay them to put out a pill that's already out there, doing a great job? nobody! i am aware that the drug companys sell alternatives OTC, which proves again that if they could, they would put it out as a prescription drug.
just because i gave you an example of someone i know, does not mean there are not millions of others. i'm leading you to water but i can't make you drink (another thing i always wanted to say to a teacher.) think of all the past famous, acomplished people that never went near a school. do you realize that most children spend 13years in school, with way too many of them not able to speak the native tongue when they graduate? that is unforgivable in this country! where do you think all our american greats got so smart before there was formal schooling? i think that if everyone were really serious about wanting kids to learn, we would have school choice. i know one of the big thoughts opposing that is that we can't take federal money and give it to religious schools. well, don't these people understand that this was all private money before the government stole it from us and turned it into federal money? you being a libertarian, we probably agree on this subject. but i would be interested to hear what you think about it.
you obviously have your political mind set in the simplicity of left vs right. it's so much more than that these days. i'm well aware of what a libertarian believes in but at this time in our country's sad state of affairs, we can't afford to have someone throw their vote away on a write-in candidate that they know can't win. that's the chicken way out! you and others like you can't simply stand back and say, "don't blame me, i didn't vote for him!" you need to take a stand and go with the guy that you think will lead our country in a better direction. when you vote for a write-in, you're really voting for the other guy. no one person is going to do everything you want them to do, so go with the best one that has a chance of winning and really cast a vote!
Post a Comment
<< Home