Posted: Jun 19, 2010 11:15 pm
Shrunk, you said,
NO, although one could use these examples to establish the principle. I would look to the Thalidomide examples, or one of the others I provided to see that blindly following any protocol, alternative or conventional, has issues. Why don’t you use some of my other examples and see if they are dismissed so easily?
I have not suggested this, and if you were not cherry picking my posts this should be obvious. I am suggesting that we blindly follow protocols of al kinds and cause significant , avoidable damage in conventional medicine. Blindly following alternate treatments is just as dangerous, simply do not suspend critical judgement when finding effective treatments.
Then read my posts more carefully and I am sure it will become apparent.
And this demonstrates that we often blindly follow protocols, suspend our judgment and become so focussed on method that we lose sight that healing is the primary aim. The above is an argument for principle. I accept that the argument around how well homeopathy fits normal protocols is challenging, but it still works in many cases. Consider then, that perhaps the method has some issues, rather than dismissing the treatment.
The title of this is ‘the danger of science denial, so I think the points are valid
I disagree, we are debating the danger of science denial, so arguments about homeopathy are relevant as examples, just as blindly following conventional protocols are. If science is about reality and not protocol, then I suggest you take an argument about homeopathy in to a thread titled, “is homeopathy, a doctrinal belief that attempts to present itself as scientific etc”,
And therefore you conclude that a statement like "Soft tissue swelling often accompanies a fracture" is no more scientifically valid than, "Water possesses a 'memory' for substances that have been dissolved in it, but not all substances, just ones that have been intentionally introduced by a homeopath and has been 'potentized' by shaking in a specific manner (but don't ask us what this 'specific manner' is because we have no idea, which doesn't mean we can't still do it anyway).
NO, although one could use these examples to establish the principle. I would look to the Thalidomide examples, or one of the others I provided to see that blindly following any protocol, alternative or conventional, has issues. Why don’t you use some of my other examples and see if they are dismissed so easily?
Even though this 'memory' cannot be demonstrated in any empirical manner whatsoever, and is inconsistent with all known principles of physics, we nonetheless know it exists and, moreover, makes this water an effective treatment for all illnesses, including cancer and AIDS."?
I have not suggested this, and if you were not cherry picking my posts this should be obvious. I am suggesting that we blindly follow protocols of al kinds and cause significant , avoidable damage in conventional medicine. Blindly following alternate treatments is just as dangerous, simply do not suspend critical judgement when finding effective treatments.
If that's not your point, then I'm not sure what your point is.
Then read my posts more carefully and I am sure it will become apparent.
That in clinical practice physicians often, of necessity, must rely on hunches, intuition, experience and inductive reasoning when solid empirical evidence does not exist to guide a particular decision? That physicians often err in assuming how strongly supported their interventions are actually supported by evidence? That physicians are often unable or disinclined to provide a patient the optimal degree of individual attention, and it is therefore incumbent upon patients to take an active participatory role in their health care?
And this demonstrates that we often blindly follow protocols, suspend our judgment and become so focussed on method that we lose sight that healing is the primary aim. The above is an argument for principle. I accept that the argument around how well homeopathy fits normal protocols is challenging, but it still works in many cases. Consider then, that perhaps the method has some issues, rather than dismissing the treatment.
I would not disagree with any of these statements, and any one would be the basis for an interesting discussion. But, as Mr. Samsa has reminded us, none of these are the topic of this discussion.
The title of this is ‘the danger of science denial, so I think the points are valid
This discussion is about homeopathy, a doctrinal belief that attempts to present itself as scientific, but which bases it's premises on quasireligious pseudoscientific dogma, and whose adherents continue to practice in defiance of rigorous scientific evidence that their interventions are no more effective than placebo.
I disagree, we are debating the danger of science denial, so arguments about homeopathy are relevant as examples, just as blindly following conventional protocols are. If science is about reality and not protocol, then I suggest you take an argument about homeopathy in to a thread titled, “is homeopathy, a doctrinal belief that attempts to present itself as scientific etc”,